BIODIESEL & SVO DISCUSSION FORUMS





Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
Page 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
member
posted Hide Post
quote:
For those who thoght AGW apoligists were running out of steam:


Are you sure that wasn't some sort of April Fool's broadcast? The themes were right out of movies/books: When the Earth Stood Still, War of the Worlds, heck, even Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy!
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Humorous commentary on aliens destroying Earth

Scary thought if you really think about it. Assume that there are aliens who wish to destroy potential rivals for galactic resources. Also assume that interstellar travel is difficult and expensive for the aliens so that it isn’t feasible to invade or simply destroy other planets. What better way to eliminate a competing race at minimal expense than to send a small probe that would use some means to persuade an alien species to destroy their own technological civilization by limiting their energy supply? This would explain why the greenie weenies are opposed to nuclear power as well as fossil fuels. Perhaps Al Gore’s transformation into the high priest of Global Warming Theology using the same tactics and style of a stereotypical televangelist is as much the result of alien influence as his training in a seminary? Was Al Gore abducted by aliens? Was he conditioned and programed to wage jihad against technological civilization by being subjected to repeated probings? One can only hope unless he enjoyed it.

Jim Crawford



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
An interesting "discovery" by scientists:

CERN Update: Cosmic Ray Data will Force Climate Models to be ‘Substantially Revised’
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler...bstantially-revised/


Funny thing though, those who want to know, knew this way, way back:


Could cosmic rays be causing global warming?
It's cosmic rays
In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the Sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High-energy accelerated particles coming from exploded stars, the cosmic rays, help to form clouds.
http://www.skepticalscience.co...d-global-warming.htm

and

Cosmic Rays Linked To Global Warming
ScienceDaily (July 31, 2002)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../07/020731080631.htm

and

Cosmic rays blamed for global warming
By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent
12:01AM GMT 11 Feb 2007
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/new...-global-warming.html

and

Could Cosmic Rays Influence Global Warming?
by Ian O'Neill on March 20, 2008
http://www.universetoday.com/1...ence-global-warming/

and

New study shows cosmic rays cause global warming!*
Posted on March 2, 2009
http://thingsbreak.wordpress.c...ause-global-warming/

Perhaps the mass media did not have the time or the interest to report on it.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
I think I've said this before:

Let's weigh the options for what could be causing a global change to AN ENTIRE PLANET.

Could it be....these little, tiny ant-like humans scurrying around on the surface and their toys that they build...

Or maybe slight changes in the behavior of the enormous ball of active fusion that is 1.3 MILLION TIMES the volume of the Earth might have something to do with it.

Hmmmm...let's see....which seems more plausible...

Anyone who thinks humans can have a significant effect on this wet, fuzzy, floating rock in space has a way over-inflated sense of the importance of the human race, in my opinion.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Ptolemy vs Copernicus, Part II - the climate may be heliocentric not anthropogenic. The Ptolemaic solar system also relied on models that 'worked' but were complicated and incorrect.

This is serious because it confirms Svensmark's original experiments a few years ago. CERN is much too big an institution to be laughed off by the AGW aficionados the way they tried to dismiss Svensmark. This is significant; every one of the existing climate models just became very questionable.

The CERN-CLOUD results (if confirmed) are devastating to the current AGW theory. CO2 has no significant warming effect on its own. The CO2 centered climate models depend on a positive feedback mechanism from water vapor. The AGW theory needs CO2 to trigger additional water vapor and cloud cover through a feedback mechanism that has never been demonstrated. If cosmic radiation accounts for the amount and variability of cloud cover then the AGW feedback hypothesis is on shaky ground.

None of this will affect the politics or business of AGW. There are too many Big Government and rent-seeking opportunities. Also there's ego and face-saving. Many of our intellectual betters did not give themselves any way to gracefully back away from their AGW convictions. They will defend their reputation by ignoring, downplaying or directly attacking the scientists regardless of any new information. The other pro-AGW beleivers, especially those who will cling to the theory because of morality themes - anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-fossil fuel, anti-humanism, anti-development, pro-government, pro-communitarian, pro-Gaia etc.- will never let the science interfere with the religion.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
one of this will affect the politics or business of AGW. There are too many Big Government and rent-seeking opportunities. Also there's ego and face-saving. Many of our intellectual betters did not give themselves any way to gracefully back away from their AGW convictions. They will defend their reputation by ignoring, downplaying or directly attacking the scientists regardless of any new information. The other pro-AGW beleivers, especially those who will cling to the theory because of morality themes - anti-capitalism, anti-growth, anti-fossil fuel, anti-humanism, anti-development, pro-government, pro-communitarian, pro-Gaia etc.- will never let the science interfere with the religion.

Mike: Is Dick Cheney your hero? Your tirades are reminiscent of his style.
Too bad the petro/war wealth went to so few and was subsidized by a country that can no longer bear the burden.

As to us antlike critters burning cubic kilometers of hydrocarbons/year and modifying hundreds of square kilometers of land/year- We certainly do effect regional climates- and it's all connected.
-Will be interesting to see what happens when the sun comes out of it's Maunder Minimum.
Then again, Got Fuel To Burn- Got Roads To Drive
Keep On Rocking In The Free World
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Mississippi floods, the mid-Atlantic tornados, south-western wildfires and record heatwaves made 2011 a year of extreme weather events well before Irene hit.

But Republicans in the House of Representatives insist NOAA is a waste of money.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Plans to slash National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's budget by 30% could ruin its hurricane warning capability. Now might be a good time for Republicans to rethink their proposal to cut 30% from the existing budget of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) - the agency responsible for tracking hurricanes. NOAA says the Republican cuts will destroy its ability to warn of hurricanes five or 10 days out.

Bullshift. I can see the hurricane images on the net 10 days before they hit. So can the media; people will get all the advanced warning they need. This sort of alarmist twaddle has no credibility, it's nothing more than vacuous fear mongering by bureaucrats afraid of loosing their fat pensions. Consider the source and their vested interests. Only the naive and gullible would believe it.

The whole satellite reporting system is automated. It's critical to national defense and for that reason alone the satellite net will be maintained. The images are available on line with no human intervention. Cuts will reduce redundant staff; the weather monitoring won't be affected.

Get real, analyze what you read and think, don't just parrot political rhetoric.

They should slash ALL government departments by 30%.

Do you want to reduce the deficit or go deeper into debt?



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Good. You favor deep cuts to "defense"

This message has been edited. Last edited by: SUB,
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
"Anyone who thinks humans can have a significant effect on this wet, fuzzy, floating rock in space has a way over-inflated sense of the importance of the human race, in my opinion."

Those that fail to acknowledge human based impacts on this planet have under inflated senses, in my opinion.

Time to check in with the calcareous organisms in the anthropocentrically acidifying oceans- and consider possible fallout- for a start.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Sub, your right, we need to look more into both climate science and the possible acidification of the oceans. We don't know enough about either to make political decisions on the subjects. More Study! And we should seriously look at the ethics of the scientists that recommend political action when they f'n KNOW the science is still in it's infancy.

As an American Citizen, I think the Candian Government needs a new tax. They need an American propery tax on Candian citizens that is used to subsidize American shoppers in Canada. What do you two think, Sub, Galt, do we need more Americans medling in Candian Politics?
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I don't understand the question's relevance.

If you're skeptical of AGW theory then, according to Al Gore, not only are you a "denier" (akin to Holocaust denier) but you're also much like a racist. One would think that some of the more intelligent environmentalists would much prefer if Gore just shut up. He truly is hurting "his side" ... big time.

A common narrative of pundits & politicians on the Left is that they and their ilk respect science, whereas conservatives allegedly do not. This assertion has never made much sense to me but let's put it to the test.

Lawrence Solomon reports on the latest findings of CERN in regard to global warming. Turns out that the sun and cosmic rays have a lot more effect on the Earth's temperature than mankind does.

James Delingpole chimes in with his analysis too.

With such earth shattering new evidence coming to the fore, surely everyone on the Left who once claimed that mankind was mostly to blame for temperature changes, will now publicly admit they were wrong? Mr. Gore, Mr. Suzuki, as the men of science that you constantly tell us that you are, we look forward to these pronouncements this coming week.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
According to a study from The Climate Institute of Australia We will all go insane soon if we don't act now to stop man made global warming.

I'm not joking, this is a real AGW research group with funding from the Australian Government. The other day it was Penn State and NASA researchers publishing "research" suggesting that if we do not act now to stop man made global warming, space aliens will attack us an eat us to save the galaxy from our evil ways.

Really? We will all go insane before or after the space aliens attack?!?

Sorry but these AGW Doomsday Profits doing more to discredit AGW as a science than anything any denier has done so far.

 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
member
posted Hide Post
Duh...ok...so they take REAL traumatic events (brush fires, floods), and the REAL mental anxiety that can follow...and link that to climate change because they link the REAL event to climate change...with no supporting theory.
 
Location: Southern WI, USA | Registered: May 18, 2006Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
They warn that hurricanes will get more destructive in the future. And as oceans warm, more and more of the strongest storms will creep north.

Warm seas

About 90 tropical cyclones form worldwide each year; that pace hasn't changed recently. Rather than causing more hurricanes and typhoons to develop, the 0.5-degree Celsius rise in tropical sea surface temperatures that has occurred over the past 30 years seems to have another effect. As Colorado State atmospheric scientist James Elsner ominously put it: "The strongest storms are getting stronger."

Hurricanes are like heat engines, Elsner explained. When the ocean puts more heat in, more energy comes out in the form of faster winds that blow for longer. As detailed in a 2008 paper in Nature (and in later studies analyzing subsequent hurricane seasons), he and his colleagues have noticed a steady upward trend in the maximum wind speed of the strongest hurricanes. For the top fifth most intense hurricanes, wind speeds have increased by 4.5 miles per hour per degree-Celsius rise in the ocean temperature. For storms in the top 10th of the intensity ranking, wind speeds have increased by 14.5 mph per degree Celsius.

That's a jump of almost an entire category on the Saffir-Simpson Hurricane Scale that rates hurricane intensity. [Are Category 6 Hurricanes Coming Soon?]

Only the strongest tropical storms seem to be affected by rising ocean temperatures; Elsner says this is because they alone experience a "thermodynamic perfect environment" — open waters with no wind shear coming from land. "Most storms are struggling as they pass near the coast. Only strong storms in this favorable thermodynamic environment are able to intensify with the warm ocean," he told Life's Little Mysteries.

Theoretical models for how ocean temperatures should affect hurricane intensity square with Elsner's real-world data. Kerry Emanuel, a professor of meteorology at MIT and an expert on hurricane intensification, has developed a model called the "maximum potential intensity theory," which predicts that the strongest storms will get stronger as seas warm.

The effect seems especially apparent in the North Atlantic, where cooler waters used to knock the wind out of hurricanes as they moved north, but no longer do.

Emanuel first presented his model in a 2005 article in Nature. "The correlations between Atlantic hurricane power and sea surface temperature have actually improved [since then]," he wrote in an email. This strengthens the predictions laid out in his theory. He regularly updates maps displaying the maximum cyclone intensity throughout the world's oceans.

Controversy

Not everyone is convinced that the growing intensity of hurricanes results from global warming.

Tony Barnston, the lead forecaster at the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, said there are more factors than just ocean temperature involved in making storms stronger.

"So far, the ocean temperatures have not increased by a sufficient amount to make an obviously higher observed hurricane activity level," he told us. A climate cycle called the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillation may explain the seeming surge in hurricane activity over the past 15 to 20 years, he said. Ultimately, more study — or time — is needed before the impact of higher ocean temperatures will become apparent.

David Easterling, chief of the Global Climate Applications Division at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, thinks that both man-made climate change and natural climate cycles are playing roles.

"Certainly, ocean temperatures in the tropical regions have an impact. But the effect of climate change might be superimposed onto the Atlantic Multi-decadal Oscillations. Hurricanes are very complicated storms that are impacted by a lot of different things," he said. [Tornadoes, Floods, Hurricanes: Is All the Wild Weather Connected?]

Either way, the scientists we contacted all agree: Global warming will make hurricanes more destructive.

Surf's up

"Sea level rise is generally accepted," Barnston wrote in an email. The physical explanation is straightforward: Warmer air is melting the glaciers, so there's more water. Observations have shown that the ocean is rising by 0.12 inches per year, and rising at a faster rate all the time.

One model by Vivien Gornitz of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and colleagues predicts that the sea level around New York City could jump 15 to 19 inches by 2050 and by more than 3 feet by 2080. When it comes to hurricane impacts, Barnston said the consequence of a higher sea level is also straightforward.

"With a higher 'normal' sea level, the sea level during a hurricane would cause more severe flooding, since the normal sea level would already be higher than it was in the past," Barnston wrote. Hurricanes can cause enormous storm surges, pushing 30-foot-tall walls of water in front of them.

"If the tides are higher on the coasts, then your mitigation efforts, such as seawalls, will not be designed for the storms of tomorrow," Elsner said.

Coping mechanisms

The researchers also agreed that Atlantic and Gulf Coast cities need to improve their hurricane plans, regardless of the fact that storms may get worse.

Barnston thinks coastal cities should discourage development along low-lying areas. "The worst need is not to build new homes or businesses at very low elevations anymore, such as anything below 6 feet elevation above current sea level," he wrote.

Hurricanes have always been extremely dangerous, and people have always tended to underprepare for them, Easterling said. "Hurricanes are not something you want to mess around with. Standards and that sort of thing need to be updated, and need to be looked at regularly, especially in developments and infrastructure along the coast. People need to review their hurricane plans, and cities need to have evacuation routes set up."

He, too, believes people need to stop building in low-lying coastal areas. "But of course, there are always people willing to take that risk."

After all, a house by the sea is the most peaceful place in the world — most of the time.

This story was provided by Life's Little Mysteries, a sister site to LiveScience.

* Which US Cities Are Most Vulnerable to Hurricanes?
* How Strong Can a Hurricane Get?
* Did Climate Change Causing the Record-Breaking Tornadoes & Floods?
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
RickDaTech
member
2011 Sponsor
Posted August 29, 2011 12:24 PM Hide Post
Sub, your right, we need to look more into both climate science and the possible acidification of the oceans. We don't know enough about either to make political decisions on the subjects. More Study! And we should seriously look at the ethics of the scientists that recommend political action when they f'n KNOW the science is still in it's infancy.

As an American Citizen, I think the Candian Government needs a new tax. They need an American propery tax on Candian citizens that is used to subsidize American shoppers in Canada. What do you two think, Sub, Galt, do we need more Americans medling in Candian Politics?


Pinkies Down! You tea partiers assume that others have no memory or brains- You invited me into American political commentary:
quote:
Originally posted by RickDaTech:
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:

Why the change of heart?


Obama's Great Depression.

Then Mike's wonderful prose linking the "AGW Religion" with humanitarian and other concerns honestly reminded me of Dick's delusional obfuscation.
"In My Time" - Hot off the press: Get your signed copy today!!

So if you honestly think oceanic acidification et al needs more study, why chop NOAA?
OA is irrefutable and anthropogenic which combined with rising temperatures is causing irrefutable damage.
As to the ethics of scientists advocating action: The precautionary principal should apply where there is a chance of great harm-
Besides all the other arguments I may have to remake.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by RickDaTech:
quote:
The freak windstorm that toppled the main stage at the Ottawa Bluesfest may be a sign of weather to come, warns a top climatologist.


This statement is the direct result of abandoning the scientific method. This guy has NO science to back up his speculation. It's pure fear mongering. An intentional Lie.

Climate change is about a change of a fraction of a degree of average temperature over decades or centuries. The whole premis that global warming causes more hot air is false. That is, except for the hot air coming out of the mouths of political activists like this so called climate scientist.

That can anyone fall for this malarky is a testiment gullibility of the political activist.


For the record, the scientist used the word "may" to acknowledge lack of certainty in what cannot be a simple science like chemistry.

Just because fiercer weather was an early prediction for AGW/CC doesn't mean that the prediction was rubbish-
In Fact,
DISPROVE IT.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
OA is irrefutable and anthropogenic

Irrefutable,yes... however human activity is not the only source of CO2, and CO2 might not be the only factor causing OA. We have very little understanding of sub-sea volcanic vents and the influence thy have on ocean chemistry. So I'm not comfortable labeling it anthropogenic, because that implies that human activity is the only cause.

If we can agree that human activity is one of many factors affecting the changing climate, then I believe we can have useful discussions. What we need is open minded scientifically disciplined study of all the factors affecting the changing climate without influence and meddling from political agendas.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post



member
2013 Sponsor
posted Hide Post
Sub,

What concern of yours is it of yours how American Citizens decide to spend their money? How about you petition the Canadian Government to bankrupt itself with out of control spending? You seem to have an unbridled hatred for an EX American Vice President. Wouldn't it be more productive to focus all that passion on Canadian Politics? I don't care how Canadians want to change the US political system. When it comes to US Politics, Canadians are irrelevent.

These latest two studies, that everyone will go insane, or space aliens will eat us, once again puncuate how stupid things can get when the Scientific Method is abandoned. Consensus is an attempt to give credibility to wild speculation.

Another illustration of how stupid things can get with consensus is: AGW apoligists want us to beleive that only AGW apoligisits are qualified to vote in the consensus. It's easy to win a "consensus" when you disqualify anyone that disagrees with you. The Scientific Method does not need a consensus.

quote:
Just because fiercer weather was an early prediction for AGW/CC doesn't mean that the prediction was rubbish-
In Fact,
DISPROVE IT.


Here we have another falacy of Conensus. The burden of proof is on those that want change. Some idiot makes a wild speculation and consensus makes it fact? Why should I disprove wild unfounded speulation? The idiots that said the weather may get fiercer, need to get off their arse and prove it if they want anyone to do anything about it.

Here is something for you: exposure to moonbeams may make otherwise sane scientists beleive man is causing global warming. now disprove that one bub.
 
Location: Cowboy Country | Registered: December 06, 2004Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Here we have another falacy of Conensus. The burden of proof is on those that want change. Some idiot makes a wild speculation and consensus makes it fact? Why should I disprove wild unfounded speulation?


For a guy that extols the scientific method (yet never follows it yourself) it's becoming obvious you have no clue as to how it works. Armchair speculation may work for you but thankfully it's not how science works.

Take you opinion to the newspaper editorials,start a crusade, maybe a secret handshake for your little (but vocal) club and keep the faith.

ignorance is bliss


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 ... 184 
 

Sponsors    Biodiesel and SVO Forums Home    Forums  Hop To Forum Categories  Environment  Hop To Forums  General Environmental Discussion    Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please

© Maui Green Energy 2000 - 2014