BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
Climatic Chain Reaction Caused Runaway Greenhouse Effect 55 Million Years Ago

ScienceDaily (Dec. 27, 2007) — There are new findings regarding a phase of rapid global greenhouse warming that took place 55 million years ago. This period of climate change is regarded as the best fossil analogue to current and future greenhouse warming.

Analogous to the Earth's current situation, greenhouse warming 55 million years ago was caused by a relatively rapid increase of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere. This phase, known as the Paleocene-Eocene thermal maximum (PETM), was studied using sediments that accumulated 55 million years ago on the ocean floor in what is now New Jersey.

The new study shows that a large proportion of the greenhouse gases was released as a result of a chain-reaction of events. Probably due to intense volcanic activity, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere became higher and the ensuing greenhouse effect warmed the Earth. As a result, submarine methane hydrates (ice-like structures in which massive amounts of methane are stored) melted and released large amounts of methane into the atmosphere.

This further amplified the magnitude of global warming, which comprised about 6o C in total. The study is the first to show such a chain reaction during rapid warming in a 'greenhouse world'.

The new research confirms that global warming can stimulate mechanisms that release massive amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere. Current and future warming will likely see similar effects, such as methane hydrate dissociation, adding additional greenhouse gases to those resulting from fossil fuel burning.

Last year, the same group of researchers showed in Nature that tropical algae migrated into the Arctic Ocean during the PETM, when temperatures rose to 24oC. Current climate models are not capable of simulating such high temperatures in the Arctic, which has repercussions for the predictions of future climate change. In addition to Al Gore’s presentation, this type of research shows what a greenhouse world looks like, including palm trees and crocodiles in the Arctic.

Journal Article: ‘Environmental precursors to rapid light carbon injection at the Palaeocene/Eocene boundary’ by Appy Sluijs, Henk Brinkhuis, Stefan Schouten, Steven M. Bohaty, Cédric M. John, James C. Zachos, Gert-Jan Reichart, Jaap S. Sinninghe Damsté, Erica M. Crouch & Gerald R. Dickens. Nature. December 20, 2007.

Lead author is Appy Sluijs (Utrecht University, The Netherlands) and co-authors include Henk Brinkhuis, Gert-Jan Reichart (both from Utrecht University), Stefan Schouten (Royal Netherlands Institute for Sea Research: NIOZ), Jaap Sinninghe Damsté (NIOZ, UU), James C. Zachos (University of California at Santa Cruz), and Gerald R. Dickens (Rice University).
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071221222544.htm
Adapted from materials provided by Utrecht University.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Good article John. Basically it says this type of warming happened long before any kind of industrialization and it is simply happening again. It also would suggest that man made C)2 is not the problem. Seems there is far more at work in our universe than just man.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Scarecrow57

I have real problems with your idea's of "peer review" and your site world Climate report and here's the list

1: References to peer reviewed work used to extrapolate your theses does not make your paper peer reviewed It just references other work, that's a big difference. As for saying posting it on the web makes it "peer reviewed is a load of crap. Look at the top of the article, it
hasn't been published at all. the article I posted on consensus was published in "Science". do not compare this so called site of your yours because I suspect it's another "front site" for other interests . You have produced an article that claimed there were many peer reviewed reports in the last while but didn't produce a link to one It also said in it's article that one report that was gong to blow the doors of the Global warming theory off but the report can't be found It provides links to other front groups that make it seem legitimate but they also receive money from oil companies and public relations firms

Do you not see that every story is against Global warming theory's? that alone should be a tip that a view is being presented. And the name?

It just happens to be the same as the IPCC "world climate report". This is not a coincidence. this site will pop up in any search for the real report. this is by design and this is what these site do.

In short I just want to see one genuine published peer reviewed article from any of those sites you have posted from

here is a site called SourceWatch
that lists these so call "grass roots" organizations and where their donations come from. it is a wiki style with strict referencing You can believe it or not but all the reverence material is extensive with plenty of links to verify, unlike the world climate report

the list

If you are open minded then read this. Check their sources out there are over 400 on the list

Heartland institute,friends of science and National recourse stewardship project (NRSP or not real science people as I have said before remember?) are all on this list and linked to by your site.

this is the crux of our debate. The data you present is from site that have a dubious source of funding tainting the whole presentation.They use twisted data dubious sources and exaggerations but no peer reviewed reports

they have made claims of peer review without posting any. Why?

keep and open mind and just read the link


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
ScareCrwo57

quote:
Good article John. Basically it says this type of warming happened long before any kind of industrialization and it is simply happening again. It also would suggest that man made C)2 is not the problem. Seems there is far more at work in our universe than just man.


That's not what it's saying ScareCrow this is what it's saying

quote:
The new research confirms that global warming can stimulate mechanisms that release massive amounts of stored carbon into the atmosphere.


what was the cause of global warming in the first place?

quote:
Probably due to intense volcanic activity



what did it do?

quote:
This further amplified the magnitude of global warming, which comprised about 6o C in total. The study is the first to show such a chain reaction during rapid warming in a 'greenhouse world'.



This study confirms that there are feedbacks to global warming and that will take us to higher temps.

Read it carefully Scarecrow it's vindicating what I have all ready said about the feed back mechanism. like the loss of Ice which reflects and the release of methane in Siberia


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Well sir. Most of the scientific sites with research work want people to pay to get access to their content. Even then, if one reads the reports the peer reviews are not there. The reason being is that scientist A writes a report and submits it for publication. The editors review it and decide if it should be published. The peer review comes when the subscribers read the research. You will be hard pressed to find and post any research with peer reviews.

I do give sites with comment by scientists on research that you can pay for any time you want. I for one will not pay the annual $200 fee.

You will find it interesting to note that I did find an Abstract at Inter-Research That actually says the current trend is good for Canada's crop production. Of course you won't hear the alarmist saying that because it is not good for their political agenda.

Your Sourcewatch site is just another liberal web site promoting it's own agenda. In fat, when looking at the IPCC on that site we get the heading "Efforts to Undermine the IPCC" The site is without a doubt biased, I question the integrity of the data on any WIKI site.
quote:
The sponsor of SourceWatch is the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD), a nonprofit American-based news media research group founded in 1993 by environmentalist writer and political activist John Stauber, which, in addition to SourceWatch, publishes PR Watch, a quarterly newsletter edited by Laura A. Miller. The creator of SourceWatch, Sheldon Rampton, is CMD's research director.


I have provided you with Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is the Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology as well as Dr. Timothy Ball is Chairman and Chair of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the Natural Resources Stewardship Project (NRSP). Both of whom are cast in a negative light on this liberal web site. LMAO I'll bet they are funded by Al Gore and moveon.org.

Once again, you use politics instead of science. When one looks at the science and understands the science they soon realize that the alarmist have an agenda that has little to do with man Global Warming. You can't look at 100 years in the life of the earth and say this is a trend. Sort of like looking at the instantaneous pressure in your veins, taking a snapshot at the top of a pulse, and claiming you have high blood pressure and will die soon. Look at the last 500,000 years that Al Gore so loves to talk about with his graphs of CO2 lagging Temperature. Anyone with a little bit of science knowledge and common sense can see that the graphs have a fundamental frequency and we are pulsing along just like we always have.

Do yourself a favor. List all of the sources of CO2 and then list the ways CO2 disappears from the atmosphere. Then list all of the ways that the earth gets heat. And when you are done ask yourself these questions. How do I know this list is complete? How do I know the list is accurate? What effect do each of these have on the overall picture.

As someone with a little system theory under his belt I can tell yo that our climate is composed of many inputs, many outputs, and many feedbacks (both positive and negative). To say that our climate is dominated by one input, CO2, is absolutely insane. Further, the science doesn't support that notion. Take a little time to look over the abstracts and titles of some of the papers listed at Inter-Research/Climate Research. You can go journal by journal each of which list about 7 or 8 articles and you will soon see that the alarmists have over simplified the issue.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
As for the article, it confirms what I have been saying all along. This same thing happened 55 million years ago. There are many inputs and feedbacks into the climate system that are simply out of our control. To say that man made CO2 is all of a sudden the dominating feature ignores all history and all other inputs.

There is a statement in System theory that states - The current state of the system depends on the current input and all past inputs. Ignoring all past states of the system and focusing on only a minuscule portion (150 years) will provide highly inaccurate results.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
It is obvious that you have no intention of even looking at the recourses I have provided. Your views are narrow and suited to your beliefs. The links I have provided show with research exactly where Liers like Tim Ball get their funding

Yes he has been called a lier in print as well and launched a lawsuit against this writer which was dropped,no reason given.

You don't understand the peer review process that is obvious and you missread the peer reviewed science (like the one John posted) to suit your needs

There is no use in continuing this debate with one so narrowly focused I leave this here so that some one reading can see the hopeless position your are in with junk science to back your many opinionated friends at these site.

Don't worry though in a few years this will be revealed to you and the extent of this deception will become apparent,even to you.


So sit back,do nothing and wait for the inevitable in a few years. The tobacco industry tried this and was successful in delaying the outcome that smoking causes cancer. That insider report that they new Nicoteen was addictive sunk their ship

As this will in the very near future

I'm done here going around the same circles of argument with someone who dosn't want to get off


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Here, lets look at this again:


quote:
Just by looking at the waveform we can see that there is a fundamental frequency associated with the sawtooth of about 150,000 years. However to get that waveform there also must me several other components involved. Just by looking at historical data we can see that we are currently right where we should be based on the periodic cycle of the historical data.


Did you even look at the chart? We WERE "right where we should be based on the periodic cycle of the historical data"...that was around 1750, then it spiked by 30% in the past 250 years....how is that consistent with past history?? By past history I am referring to our current glacial/interglacial cycle NOT 50 or 500 million years ago when the position of the continents were quite different and therefore the parameters of the system were different and the system/cycle that was occurring then was NOT the same system/cycle that is occurring today.

quote:
Also, if you are going to look at historical data you need to look at more than a snapshot (like the last 500 years). Look at the entire picture, not just one tiny bit. 500 years in the life of the planet is nothing.


Obviously...you said that "And the mere fact that temperature increases lead CO2 increases by some 800 years also needs to be explained." which is why I mentioned "past 250 years (or the 800 years previous to that". And NO the average global temps. DID NOT increase exponentially in the past 800 years and therefore doesn't explain our current exponential spike in atmospheric CO2..we are NOT just where we should be....the natural system/cycle has been interrupted/fouled.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
`86 Volkswagen Jetta NA: 9 Gallon Marine Tank>Transmission Cooler Tank Heater>TIH>FPHE>Coolant Wrapped Veg Filter>2, 3 Port Hydraforce Valves>Temp. Probe>Line Heater Specialist Injector Line Heaters>Vegtherm on Return>"Crud Catcher">Loop

Everyone Should Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn
 
Location: Woodstock, IL | Registered: May 28, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Actually, my view is not narrow. I look at the whole picture rather than one tiny snapshot in time.

What is interesting in this debate is we have the ultra liberal environmental crowd pushing an agenda based on fear and alarmism, all the while choosing to ignore the science. The spokesperson for the movement, Al Gore, tells us of rising sea levels of 20 feet, yet the IPCC report says sea levels will rise 7 to 24 inches.

We constantly hear of thinning ice sheets, but the fact that the ice mass in Antarctica is increasing is seldom heard. The left tends to only use sensationalism and leaves out those facts that hurt their cause. Mr Lindzen and the other thousands of scientist that look at this issue caution that we simply do not know enough yet. They are trying to bring common sense and balance to the table, and in so doing are labeled liars, skeptics, and are accused of being paid off. Lord knows Al Gore stands to make no money from the fear he breeds (sarcasm).

We can implement all kinds of measures to reduce CO2 and in the end the result will be the same. It is extremely arrogant and self serving to think that man can control the weather and climate. Just like our lives, we can control certain things, but the end, the result is the same. Al Gore and the environmental organizations like Greenpeace like to ruin the lives of millions all in the name of thinking they can control the planet. I don't know what gave them the impression that they are all so mighty and have such power of the universe.

I had to laugh last night. Watched a segment on 60 minutes about big fires in the west. I knew going in that the real problem is the way in which the forest are being managed. Huge fuel loads have been allowed to accumulate on the forest floors. It is a problem that was brought on by the green movement. However, 60 minutes chose to blame this on Global Warming. Now get this. The claim was made that over the last 20 years, temperatures have risen and that spring comes earlier and fall comes later. In fact, in the last 20 years the fire season grew by 78 days. He says that the temperature in the west has increased by 1 degree (assume F). So about 10,000 years ago one would have to surmise that there was no fire season at all.

I know you like to use Science Daily as a source. It appears that this magazine in fact does some unbiased reporting. Of course, unbiased reporting doesn't do any good if the reader selective reads using his or her own biases. Here they report that climate variations are do to chaotic random variations and have nothing to do with the Sun. Climate Change: Could It Be Random?. What they are telling us is that nothing will really influence our climate and that climate controls itself.

Here is a novel concept. Earth, just like people, has mechanism that actually control and modulate itself. I recommend you remove your biases and look at all of the literature. Please do not be one sided.

Myself, I believe the Climate is warming. I beleive man affects the climate. The questions are - To what degree does man influence the climate? If man has such an influence on the climate then how do we explain past variations (which we are still within those limits)? And how can anyone say with any king of confidence that this is the most rapid warming we have ever seen? We can only measure the last 150 years out Billions, that is an extremely small percentage. Using a lifetime of 4 billion years I get a 150 years as being 0.00000375%. I ask you, would you buy stocks based on 1 days activity? Probably not, why then would you make such gross exaggerations about the Earths climate on such limited data?


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
-wewantutopia- I went in search of some information about CO2, as I recall there were times in Earths history where the levels exceeded what we have today. However, I came across this site (I tend to read both sides of the issue) Global Warming: A chilling Perspective About 2/3 of the way down the page is a section called Fun Facts about CO2.

quote:
Of the 186 billion tons of CO2 that enter earth's atmosphere each year from all sources, only 6 billion tons are from human activity. Approximately 90 billion tons come from biologic activity in earth's oceans and another 90 billion tons from such sources as volcanoes and decaying land plants.


In other words man contributes 3% of the total CO2, which represents .38% of the atmosphere, so CO2 from man contributes to 0.1% of the total. Think about that for a moment.

You also will not see the exponential increases in the past for a couple of reasons. One most charts are simplified for the layman to understand. Second, most data from more than 150 years ago is estimated based on carbon dating and becomes less accurate over time.

For an explanation of the exponential nature of any waveform I refer yo uto this discussion on the Fourier Transform. while this is a Wiki article the math is accurate and hence this is a good source. So trust, me there are exponential rises and falls throughout the waveform that is presented.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I have tried to keep this on a scientific agenda. I have tried to keep this on sound science and peer reviewed reports.

You have not offered any


I have never said the sun was responsible for global warming. never. check my posts,that's why I leave them

as for your link, like the last story you ignore what it's saying and trumpet that this global warming event we are in now is the result of?

quote:
Here they report that climate variations are do to chaotic random variations and have nothing to do with the Sun.


what does the header say?

quote:
Severe climate changes during the last ice-age could have been caused by random chaotic variations on Earth and not governed by external periodic influences from the Sun. This has been shown in new calculations by a researcher at the Niels Bohr Institute, Copenhagen University.


It's from previous Ice ages. get it?

It also says

quote:
The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue, researchers claim. This will lead to increased sea levels and more severe weather with terrible consequences. The temperature rise during the glacial period were much larger and happened much faster.

Temperature increased by 10 degrees in less than 50 years with changes to the ocean currents and the whole ecosystem. These changes have caused sea level rises up to perhaps as much as 8 meters and large changes to the vegetation.


Do you read these articles? at all? it's says The global warming we experience presently will cause a temperature increase of perhaps 2-5 degrees in the next century if greenhouse gas emissions continue

that's us, as in humans as in mankind

And one last time (write this on your forehead) I have used data from the last 6 ice ages to show climate. Data from the age of industrialization to present (250 years) is used to show the co2 level increases


NOT CLIMATE


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Your "FUN FACTS about CARBON DIOXIDE" is inaccurate.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/globalghg.html

Annually humans contribute 25 Billion metric tons of CO2 (that's ~27 Billion short tons) NOT the 6 that you link states. Mind you this doesn't even take into account the carbon sinks the humans have destroyed so CO2 entering and STAYING in the atmosphere from biological and volcanic sources that otherwise would have cycled out via the carbon cycle is also Haman's fault.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
`86 Volkswagen Jetta NA: 9 Gallon Marine Tank>Transmission Cooler Tank Heater>TIH>FPHE>Coolant Wrapped Veg Filter>2, 3 Port Hydraforce Valves>Temp. Probe>Line Heater Specialist Injector Line Heaters>Vegtherm on Return>"Crud Catcher">Loop

Everyone Should Read "Ishmael" by Daniel Quinn
 
Location: Woodstock, IL | Registered: May 28, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Humans should be more concerned with problems they've created
instead of arguing over inconsequential issues like who to blame for global warming.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Unhoop yur head Johny boy


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Just a question for you Dan. I would like to know how come your magazine articles meet the peer review requirement, yet when I give them (even from the same magazine) they don't meet the criteria.

I have actually started reading the IPCC report and I'm digging into Working Group 1 stuff. That is the group that deals with the science, the other two groups are social and political stuff.

When reading the literature one realizes there is a great deal of uncertainty. For instance, there is a great deal of difficulty in determining why CO2 levels were so low during glacial and inter-glacial periods. There are also several models that predict the anthropogenic warming from GHG, they seem to ignore natural warming and cooling. They also are not able to determine the effects of aerosols in the atmosphere either, which will cool the earth, not warm it. One model predicts a rise of 1.8 with a range of 1.1 to 2.9. Another model predicts 4.0 with a range of 2.4 to 6.4. These are the extreme models, which now begs the question, where are these alarmist coming up with their numbers. Even the magazine article sited above says 2 to 5. One could make the argument that the B2 scenario is the correct scenario and that should be what is used, 1.1 over the next 100 years. Just another little tidbit, the base years are 1980 - 1999, which will have the net effect of exaggerating temperature rise.

The entire report is available online. you can read them online or download the PDF files. In reading the summary for policy makers and then digging into the details you find that a lot is missing from that summary.

Also, you need to be consistent. You can't selectively use the data to prove your point. Using just the last 250 years of data is invalid as far as I'm concerned. Only in the last few years, say 150, have we been able to measure and record a lot of this data, and only in the last 20 years or so for a lot of it. As stated in the report, the farther back in time one goes the less accurate the measurements are. We cannot get an accurate picture of the history of our climate. That being said it is unrealistic to make statements like this is the fastest warming trend we have ever seen. Or; CO2 levels are at their highest ever. In fact, historical data shown in the reports indicates that at one time CO2 level were much higher.

If you start reading the IPCC reports and the supporting peer reviewed documentation you will find that the science of global warming is in it's infancy and still has many questions unanswered.

i recommend that rather than make these knee jerk reactions like Kyoto, and other PC initiatives we get the answers first. I for one would like to know how much Nature will contribute to the warming of the earth.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
SareCrow57

I accept the links you posted (2 I believe) from Science Daily If you want we can go back and you can present what you believe they represent.

I do not accept any links to front groups that are not neutral and do not produce real peer reviewed science,just smoke and mirrors

As for the models they have 18 in all covering the whole range from one extreme to the other. Do not present either end of the equation without the other figures, that's misrepresenting yourself. They create all these models to see the range of predictions and present them as such

Don't make statements you can't back up just produce real scientific evidence and lets keep these posts short so people will not scroll through.

If you can do this we can debate,post all that garbage from those sites your visiting and you corrupt the data

And waste my time


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I'm with you on that. Don't listen to politicians, special interest groups, and alarmist. Look at the science to see what is really going on. Seems a lot of people like to forget and overlook certain facts. They miss things like the temperature rises can and will precede the rise in CO2. And really, in the last 200 years or so CO2 has risen by 30%, yet temperatures have around 4%. That alone indicates a missing correlation.

I will use my sources that point to actual research papers to find and read the papers if you do the same. Science Daily hardly counts as a source of research papers, it merely points to those sources. Time Magazine and NBC don't count either...seems they slant things towards their own agenda. After all NBC is owned by GE who stands to make a lot of money off of "green" Energy.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Science Daily,New Scientist,Phys Org do not print the actual reports,true but they do provide summary's and print the source. I have no problems using them . If you do then we will take it from there on a report by report basis. Agreed?

The scientists haven't missed the co2 lags, they exposed them in the first place. I read a report that explained these lags and I will try to find it.

The correlation between co2 and temperature is real. Do you acknowledge that?

Simply put, while they are related they are not directly proportional,meaning a 30% rise in co2does not correspond to a 30% rise in temperature,it's more complex than that

As for the aerosol's I agree there s some uncertainty but it is Because they are tied to the economy. When it's good the factories are pumping out more than when the economy tanks.
A prolonged depression could actually speed up the warming process. But the amount of deflection from the norm (for want of a better word) due to this has been found to be small,hens the 90% accuracy quoted for the report

But lets just take this one step at a time
on a point by point basis


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Johnny on the spot

Another god example of the way these reports are twisted to meet The deniers needs. The spin doctors work hard at this and are funded well. I just have one question (which I doubt you'll answer) Do you do this for free?

Scarecrow57

read the report and you will see this is not what the scientists are saying at all. Johnny's Opinionated reporter claims this is a result of natural causes.and not the result of increased emissions

Here's the report from New Scientist And unlike Johnny's Link It gives the source of the report at nature

An Excerpt

quote:
"We are not saying this is the only explanation," says Graversen, "this could explain maybe 25% of the amplification of warming in the Arctic."


Typical Garbage from a typical Garbage poster. You know where you can file that one Johnny on the spot.

Yur a perfect receptacle

Now quit interrupting and let the grown-up's talk will ya?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:
Science Daily,New Scientist,Phys Org do not print the actual reports,true but they do provide summary's and print the source. I have no problems using them . If you do then we will take it from there on a report by report basis. Agreed?


I guess you see my point. Science Daily,New Scientist,Phys Org as well as Heartland and The Climate Report all provide summaries as well as opinions. All are valuable sources and all site the reports they are using. I will use your sources as long as you will use mine. Sort of brings balance to the equation.

quote:
The scientists haven't missed the co2 lags, they exposed them in the first place. I read a report that explained these lags and I will try to find it.

The correlation between co2 and temperature is real. Do you acknowledge that?

Simply put, while they are related they are not directly proportional,meaning a 30% rise in co2does not correspond to a 30% rise in temperature,it's more complex than that

As for the aerosol's I agree there s some uncertainty but it is Because they are tied to the economy. When it's good the factories are pumping out more than when the economy tanks.
A prolonged depression could actually speed up the warming process. But the amount of deflection from the norm (for want of a better word) due to this has been found to be small,hens the 90% accuracy quoted for the report

But lets just take this one step at a time
on a point by point basis


There is a correlation between CO2 and the Temperature. But which came first, the temperature or the CO2.

I have suspected all along that the cooling trend from 1930 to 1970 was do to the amount of pollution in the air, it was in the 60s and 70s when industrialized nations stood up and stopped unnecessary pollution. And magically, by stopping pollution the temperatures started rising.

I take issue with statements like the one that came from 60 minutes the other night while reporting on the wild fires in the west. This scientist claimed that because of global warming the fire season is 78 days longer today than it was 20 years ago. I'm sorry, but in a climate where the temperatures go from -40 to 90 F 0.3 degrees in all the temperatures for the whole year will not lengthen the fire season by 78 days. This is just another example of the alarmist twisting things to fit their agenda.

The facts are this.

The world temperature is currently increasing. This is in line with historical trends.

Man has some effect on it, as does every other living thing and biosystem on the planet.

There is no consensus among scientists as to the what and why.


"What would you do with a brain if you had one?" Dorothy Gale
 
Location: Upstate, NY | Registered: November 05, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Here's Something for All the Global Climate Change Denialists...

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014