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 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ... 184

Moderators: Shaun, The Trouts
Go
New
Find
Notify
Tools
Reply
  
Anthropogenic Global Warming- Your thoughts please
 Login/Join
 
Member
posted Hide Post
At my firm, 2 of the 5 people smoke tobacco; I am one.
All of the people who don't smoke have taken sick days in the last 8 months-
None of the smokers have.

This clearly shows the healthful benefits of tobacco use- therefore governments should:
Eliminate discriminatory age restrictions;
Make tobacco use mandatory;
Drop the extreme taxes on tobacco and
subsidize the industry.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
I am "pleasingly Plump" (obese)
Most clothes in charity shops are donations from people cleaning out the closets of recently deceased people.
I have never been able to find clothes that fit me in a Charity Shop.
Therefore, it is clear that Obese people never die.

This clearly shows that if you want to live forever you should be obese
 
Location: New England | Registered: November 01, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Years of baseless studies and smear campaigns by misguided religious zealots against tobacco has clouded the issue.
Tobacco use is healthy and good for the economy.
Smokers unite- Roll back the red tide!
www.tobacconowforabettertommorrow.com
www.traditionfoundation.org

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
This debate rages on!
This from a long dead thread:
quote:
Originally posted by keelec:
Since the beginning of time, Mankind has strove to understand and predict or weather, with the "Holy Grail" being the ability to control the weather.

There have been many cyclical weather patterns, some being short term of a few years, others being a few decades, or even a few millennia.

You might ask why we are still finding woolly mammoths that have been trapped in glaciers for centuries.

Yet, it is also obvious that we are now making changes in our environment that we can barely comprehend.

Is global warming and "greenhouse gasses" real? I don't know. It is at least Plausible.

Is it good to take carbon & and oils that have been locked under the surface of the earth for all of eternity and blast it into the sky? Well, we can argue about that one.

What about solar Reflection vs Absorption (the point in the article). I can certainly imagine how the deep blue sea would absorb more solar energy than ice and snow. Thus, the fear of an irreversible loss of the polar ice caps.

And,
One can certainly find that in the summer, the cities are frequently several degrees hotter than the surrounding countryside, or the floor of the deep forests.

So, the question is:

Do we wish to take the role of the good shepherd of the earth?
Or do we wish to take the role of the lice infestation on the planet?




12VDan- Wondering if straight, uncorrupted data is available on earth temperatures, and CO2 levels-
I see numerous references to a cooling trend since 1998.
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Time for some science. I actually have done some scale model testing. The junk science people keep throwing out ideas just to see what will stick. First people caused GW. No, no, now it is cows. Did we say cows, we meant cars. Get rid of all the evil cars. No, no, not my car, your SUV. SUVs cause GW. I could go on and on........

No grant money was wasted on this project. This could have been posted before, but I am to busy working on my "leaves wiggling on trees causes GW" project to do a search.

Cows, people and cars did not cause any temp. increase.






It is the sun that warms the globe. You are welcome.

 
Location: Virginia | Registered: March 17, 2007Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
It is the sun that warms the globe. You are welcome.



Yes, but it is the ATMOSPHERE that absorbs the IR radiation from the Sun warmed Earth before it radiates back into space leaving the Earth a cold rock like the moon.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
`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
quote:
12VDan- Wondering if straight, uncorrupted data is available on earth temperatures, and CO2 levels-
I see numerous references to a cooling trend since 1998.


Ya it's a denier spin, been around since 03/04. You pick the hottest El Nino of the last 50 years or more well above the warming trend line and count the 6, 8 or ten years since and it looks like we're cooling. First off you need 30 years as the shortest amount of time to qualify as a climate trend. Secondly last year equaled the max temp of 98 during a La Nina year witch should in itself say something.

These oscillations as the climatologists call it are strong enough to overcome any signal from AGW short term but over thirty years or longer the AGW signal becomes apparent.

The earliest direct sampling of co2 began in the 50's. Before that you have to rely on ice cores for the data.

I'll find this stuff for you in a day or two, I don't have a lot of time here to search like I want to. I'll have to shell out for a new stick

I think that if you look at the temp record for the last 12 years you will find that there is no trend at all.

From skeptical science


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
co2 data

And from NOAA


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Wondering if straight, uncorrupted data is available on earth temperatures, and CO2 levels-
I see numerous references to a cooling trend since 1998.


Comparing IPCC 1990 predictions with 2011 data
Posted on June 9, 2011 by Anthony Watts

Submitted by Dr. Clive Best

The first IPCC report in 1990 chaired by Prof. Houghton made a prediction for a rise in global temperatures of 1.1 degrees C from 1990 until 2030. This prediction can now be compared with the actual data as measured up to now (May 2011).


Comparison of yearly HadCru & UAH data with IPCC 1990 predictions

These results have been derived as described below. You can see the results here

http://clivebest.com/blog/?p=2208

Following a gradual rise of about 0.2 degrees from 1990 to 2000, global temperatures have stopped increasing and have actually fallen slightly. The only IPCC prediction which remains consistent with the current data is the lower prediction of a 0.7 degree rise from 1990 to 2030. The “Best” IPCC estimate and the higher 1.5 degree rise are ruled out by the data.

CO2 levels in the atmosphere have continued to rise over the last 10 years (see overlay to temperature comparison below in Figure 3) but temperatures have not risen since 2000. This implies that CO2 is not the main driver of global temperatures on these time periods and that other natural mechanisms are at least as important.

No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found.





 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
And temp data from GISS

here's a graph from the same site

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/t...graphics/gl_land.gif

You can see the spike in /98 but it's also obvious the temps are not going down but have cleared that high with a new one.

No cooling trend


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
The earth's climate has been gradually warming since the last ice age. Weather can vary considerably from year to year and around the globe. Just because it's cooler this year than last year does not mean the gradual warming has stopped.

The Nenana river is a tributary of the Yukon river near Fairbanks. The Nenana Ice Classic gives a rare, reliable climate history that has documented to the minute the onset of the annual thaw as it shifted across 91 years. By this measure, spring came to central Alaska 10 days earlier in 1990 than in 1960, said geophysicist Martin Jeffries at the University of Alaska, Fairbanks. “The Nenana Ice Classic is a pretty good proxy for climate change in the 20th century,”


http://wattsupwiththat.com/201...ts-probably-nothing/
The ice broke-up on May 4th, day 124 2011

When actual temperature data from a variety of sources away from urban heat islands are used, rather than computer models, then the accelerated warming claimed by the AGW alarmists simply isn't true.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide Buildup Unlikely to Spark Abrupt Climate Change, Scientists Find
http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.../06/110620094555.htm
ScienceDaily (June 20, 2011) — There have been instances in Earth history when average temperatures have changed rapidly, as much as 10 degrees Celsius (18 degrees Fahrenheit) over a few decades, and some have speculated the same could happen again as the atmosphere becomes overloaded with carbon dioxide.

New research lends support to evidence from numerous recent studies that suggest abrupt climate change appears to be the result of alterations in ocean circulation uniquely associated with ice ages.

"There might be other mechanisms by which greenhouse gases may cause an abrupt climate change, but we know of no such mechanism from the geological record," said David Battisti, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor.



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



Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Battisti was part of a team that used a numerical climate model coupled with an oxygen-isotope model to determine what caused climate shifts in a computer-generated episode that mimicked Heinrich events during the last ice age, from 110,000 to 10,000 years ago. Heinrich events produced huge numbers of North Atlantic Ocean icebergs that had broken off from glaciers.


So do you believe in models now Johnny?


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Now that's an abrupt change


21 years off the grid and counting

 
Location: Muskoka, Ont, Can | Registered: March 23, 2003Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
Pendulum Swing Man-Made Climate Change

"To those who are not capable of dealing with the science of difficult-to-predict Chaos, Global Warming and the Worldwide Climate Changes created by (anthropogenic) human activities appear to be Random Anomalies. Simple people may believe that IF Global Warming was real, then their part of the world should show signs of steady warming not cooling. (Please read on to find out what is really happening.)

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration "State of the Climate" report documents the fact that the last decade has been the hottest in human record keeping, and that June 2010 was the hottest in human history. Increased ocean temperatures will drive more-intense deadly windstorms. Hunan activities play a significant role in global warming, which may soon melt polar-and-glacial ice, and flood coastal cities around the world. CO2 increases 2.1% / year - The worst is yet to come.

A Spring 2010 survey found that nearly one third of uninformed Americans polled believe that our government should NOT do anything about Global Warming. Some said: "It's getting colder, not warmer." They have no clue that record-breaking snow storms are the PREDICTABLE result of Global Warming. It is like the back swing of a pendulum that has been pushed too far.

Congress has had many partisan debates about man-made climate change. Have you EVER heard a Representative or Senator from one party make a good point about climate science, and then have any member of the other party say: "Excellent point - That is going to make me change my mind." Of course NOT - Only intelligent people have open minds. Entrenched adversaries will never change their closed minds, regardless of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary. Even when George Bush finally admitted that potentially-catastrophic climate change was being made worse by human activities, the big-oil-corrupted non-learning Senator from Oklahoma Jim Inhofe contradicted the President of his own party.


As I was growing up, my research-scientist father often pointed out examples where: "Half the population is below average" (which is statistically undeniable - Snicker). "If the mediocre masses disagree with proven scientific facts, it does not imply that scientists are wrong." . . . "Just because the majority ignores scientific facts does not make them go away." The popularity of insane idiots like Hitler and bin Laden does not mean that their deadly distortion of holy religion was morally correct.

“Men are so simple and so much inclined to obey immediate needs that a deceiver will never lack victims for his deceptions.” - Niccolo Machiavelli, 1513, "The Prince"
 
Registered: October 04, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
Years of baseless studies and smear campaigns by misguided religious zealots against tobacco has clouded the issue.
Tobacco use is healthy and good for the economy.
Smokers unite- Roll back the red tide!
www.tobacconowforabettertommorrow.com
www.traditionfoundation.org


Yes- those self interested public health officials cooked up a lot of tripe to get more research money.
They make a mockery of scientific method, claiming a connexion between smoking and negative health effects!
As any educated person knows, to perform a proper controlled experiment, one must have multiple identical copies- and of course everyone's DNA (except identical twins and clones) is different: Genotype- and the environment in which they live will be subject to enormous variability: Phenotype.
Their 'research' is nothing more than some historical/statistical hocus pocus.

We have found that starting smoking at a young age has many benefits- with the only minor drawbacks being bodily burns and fires. Children as young as 4 can be taught to safely smoke.
Fortunately we at Unman, Wittering and Bletherskythe have prepared an implementation ready educational package to facilitate the introduction of smoking to our kindergartens-
Get online now FREE at
www.unmanwitteringbletherskythe.com

Unman, Wittering & Bletherskythe- Because you want what's best for your family!

Fondest Regards,
Harald
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by 12voltdan:So do you believe in models now...


Sure, don't you?





Global models are always useful.


No intelligent person expects them to be real, they're only models, hypothetical constructs at best. Something intended to exemplify an ideal.

Can they be tested?

Does empirical evidence support or refute the model's predictions?

For example:

"There might be other mechanisms by which greenhouse gases may cause an abrupt climate change, but we know of no such mechanism from the geological record," said David Battisti, a University of Washington atmospheric sciences professor.


No evidence of any positive temperature feedback with increasing CO2 levels is found. - Dr. Clive Best



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
As any educated person knows, to perform a proper controlled experiment, one must have multiple identical copies- and of course everyone's DNA
I have it on good authority that is the exact reason why it is impossible to performe any meaningful Scientific Research on AGM. It requires Multiple copies of the climate and there is only ONE climate. And it does not even have DNA. Worst of all, the climate will not even stay still, it keeps changing.
Argument closed. The Scientific method shows that AGW can not be studied using the Scientific method. This is an open and shut case.
 
Registered: November 22, 2010Reply With QuoteReport This Post



Member
posted Hide Post
Models can be pretty, some people even fall in love with their models, 'scientists' in particular easily fall for a lovely model. Models are useless for predicting the future, unless they do a very good job of predicting the past. Does it accurately predict what happened before; is it's past predictions supported by historical data.

A model is only pretty to look at until you've probed it with real world experiential data and seen how it reacts. All too often models become unstable and unpredictable and become high maintenance requiring frequent add-ons and upgrades.

The historic record, comprising empirical data from a variety of sources, shows that CO2 only increases in response to warming, always lagging the temperature, not leading temperature as some climate models would suggest.

Two facts remain. The IPCC 'consensus predictions' of catastrophic warming unless we did something radical right now have shown to be false. The real temperature data since the 1990 IPCC/AlGore alarm do not support that model.

Secondly, the tenths of a degree of change that these models are perched upon, can not be measured that accurately throughout the general weather data network and certainly not with that precision historically.

There are principles in scientific investigation that relate to accuracy and precision. Significant Digits

If temperatures can be measured with reasonable precision of half a degree C or 1 degree F historically, then predictions to the nearest half degree C is all one can accurately predict for the future with those models.



 
Location: coldest N.America | Registered: May 03, 2005Reply With QuoteReport This Post
Member
posted Hide Post
quote:
Originally posted by Martin J:
quote:
Originally posted by SUB:
As any educated person knows, to perform a proper controlled experiment, one must have multiple identical copies- and of course everyone's DNA
I have it on good authority that is the exact reason why it is impossible to performe any meaningful Scientific Research on AGM. It requires Multiple copies of the climate and there is only ONE climate. And it does not even have DNA. Worst of all, the climate will not even stay still, it keeps changing.
Argument closed. The Scientific method shows that AGW can not be studied using the Scientific method. This is an open and shut case.

And the whole the paragraph:
quote:

Yes- those self interested public health officials cooked up a lot of tripe to get more research money.
They make a mockery of scientific method, claiming a connexion between smoking and negative health effects!
As any educated person knows, to perform a proper controlled experiment, one must have multiple identical copies- and of course everyone's DNA (except identical twins and clones) is different: Genotype- and the environment in which they live will be subject to enormous variability: Phenotype.
Their so called 'research' is nothing more than historical/statistical hocus pocus.


Exactly! This AGW business is a patent load of poppycock spoon fed to those proles who aren't suitably consumed with football and soap operas by nefarious huxters for their own glory-
Then there's the charlatans with a fetish for lab coats and apparatus who love to see themselves quoted in the papers and will concoct any outlandish story to secure their next funding.
That's where we at UW&B step in- Helping innocent bystanders whose interests are harmed by the swarm with a full service suite of Public Relations, Advertising, Market Research and Information Collection services.

Unman, Wittering & Bletherskythe - Because only you know what to think
www.unmanwitteringbletherskythe.com

Ta Ta!
Harald
 
Location: Vancouver Island, Canada | Registered: September 30, 2001Reply With QuoteReport This Post
  Powered by Social Strata Page 1 ... 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 ... 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