R.I.P. Global Warming...The Convenient Truth...it's not hot!

[steveo777]

For any of mankind to think and infer that we mere humans have the power to effect climate is pretty damn arrogant as human beings.

[Rick]

For any of mankind to think and infer that we mere humans have the power to effect climate is pretty damn arrogant as human beings.

It's flat out irresponsible to think we can't.

[RedWingFan]

For any of mankind to think and infer that we mere humans have the power to effect climate is pretty damn arrogant as human beings.

It's flat out irresponsible to think we can't.

In a million years. We'll probably be long gone and the Earth will continue to do what it does!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozO4YB98mCY

[G.I.Jim]

Dude, the theory of relativity JUST GOT OFFICIALLY RECOGNIZED as scientifically truthful 70 years after Einstein first proposed it, and well after it had been accepted as common knowledge among 99.9% of the world's physicists.

The fact that some data does not UNEQUIVOCALLY support climate change DOES NOT MEAN IT ISN'T HAPPENING, and certainly does NOT lend your theory of it being a "hoax" any veracity or credibility. The fact remains that ALL THE WORLD'S MAJOR GOVERNING SCIENTIFIC BODIES as well as a mega-majority of scientists and climatologists STILL FULLY SUPPORT ITS SCIENTIFIC VERACITY. YOU, sir, are in the vast minority, and what you say flies in the face of almost all the research that's been done.

Dude, there isn't a scientist in the WORLD that disagree's about the fact that the climate changes. It's MAN-MADE climate change that's up for debate! Unless you can explain how the earth has gone through several ice-ages and warmed, then cooled again without man's help OR our carbon monoxide contributions... we have nothing more to discuss on the issue. How can it be that the earth has done this all by itself since the earth's existence began, yet because we've built factories, now it's all our fault?

I don't understand how you guys can justify this argument. THE EARTH WARMS AND COOLS!!! Could we do our share to keep our rivers and lakes clean? Sure! But not at the expense that this current govt is trying to charge us.

[7 Wishes]

Fuck, dude. Let's just break out the brewskis. The good shows are coming up.

Are you going to MR II? What about Petty in Charlotte on the 7th?

[7 Wishes]

http://www.ucar.edu/news/features/climatechange/faqs.jsp#tempincrease

Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, temperatures have warmed roughly 1.33°F (0.74ºC) over the last century, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (see page 2 of the Summary for Policymakers in the IPCC’s 2007 Synthesis Report). More than half of this warming—about 0.72°F (0.4°C)—has occurred since 1979. Because oceans tend to warm and cool more slowly than land areas, continents have warmed the most (about 1.26°F or 0.7ºC since 1979), especially over the Northern Hemisphere.

The year 1998 was the warmest on record for the contiguous United States, followed closely by 2006 and 1934, according to the National Climatic Data Center. In 2008, the U.S. saw its coolest year in more than a decade. It was the first time since 1997 that the nation has been close to its 100-year average temperature (though 2008 was still slightly above that norm). The United States was actually one of the least-warm spots on Earth in 2008 when compared to local averages. The globe as a whole had its coolest year since 2000, but the global average for 2008 was still warmer than any year from 1880 to 1996, according to NCDC.

There are slight differences in global records between groups at NCDC, NASA, and the University of East Anglia. Each group calculates global temperature year by year, using slightly different techniques. However, analyses from all three groups point to the decade between 1998 and 2008 as the hottest since 1850.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/program_history/keeling_curve_lessons_4.html

Current atmospheric concentrations of CO2 are about 30% higher than they were about 150 years ago at the dawn of the industrial revolution. According to the Scripps Institution of Oceanography, ice core reconstructions going back over 400,000 years show concentrations of around 200 ppm during the ice ages and about 280 ppm during the warm interglacial periods. In other words, our current CO2 levels are higher than they've been in at least the last 400 millenia. See the Scripps Web site for a graphic illustrating this trend.

Almost a quarter of the carbon dioxide emitted by human activities is absorbed by land areas; another quarter is absorbed by the ocean. The remainder stays in the atmosphere for a century or longer.

Carbon dioxide accounts for more than half of the human-produced enhancement to Earth’s greenhouse effect. Among the other gases involved is methane, which has increased dramatically over the last century. Methane concentrations rose about 1% a year in the 1980s, but since about 2000 the concentration has leveled off, though a rise was observed in 2007. The reasons for this slow growth in recent years are not yet clear, although one possibility is a drop in the amount of methane leaked from natural gas pipelines and plants. Methane stays in the atmosphere for much less time than carbon dioxide (around a decade) and there is much less of it, but molecule for molecule, it is a far more powerful greenhouse gas. As of 2008, the concentration of methane in Earth’s atmosphere was about 1786 parts per billion.
Learn More

Keeling Curve Lessons (Scripps CO2 Program)
The Carbon Cycle (Windows to the Universe)
Earth's Greenhouse Gases (Windows to the Universe)

Other important greenhouse gases include nitrous oxide and near-surface ozone. Water vapor is actually the most prevalent greenhouse gas, but human activity has not directly increased its concentration in the atmosphere, unlike the other chemicals above. However, as global temperatures increase, more water vapor is released by oceans and lakes, and this in turn helps to increase temperatures further. This is one of many feedback loops that help to reinforce and intensify climate change.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Some processes that affect Earth's temperature do go through cycles. Examples range from the El Niño–Southern Oscillation, which brings warming (El Niño) or cooling (La Niña) to Pacific waters every few years, to glacial–interglacial periods that can span tens of thousands of years.

But the pace of natural warming since the last ice age 10,000 years ago looks puny compared to the accelerated temperature increases observed in the last 50–100 years, as our industrial activities dumped more and more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

There is now more carbon dioxide in the air than at any time in the last 2.1 million years. Whether in prehistoric times or today, more greenhouse gases mean higher global temperatures.

Oh, and here's a site with incontrovertible visual data, as well.
[url]
http://nsidc.org/data/glacier_photo/[/url]

Also, please refer to the chart at the bottom of this page:

http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html

[7 Wishes]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Wrong again! Owned!

First of all, it was published in 1987. Secondly, it simply ISN'T TRUE, as the wealth of information and links I've provided proves. Who are these scientists? Where are your and their sources? I've got thousands more points of reference for you on this shit, dude.

[7 Wishes]

As I could have predicted...no response at all.

You guys had NOTHING the last time I made a major post...you switched courses. Your faulty reasoning would get you kicked off any junior high debate club - attempting to classify something as a "hoax" and completely without merit when, in fact, a vast majority of the science and research still points towards mankind having at very least some impact on climate change...and attempting to portray hypothesis that cannot be unequivocally verified as faulty when they are not.

It's really a ridiculous approach, and flies in the face of science, fact, logic, and reasoning.

So, Lie Finder - no obscure article extrapolated by some right-wing fringe element that has no points of reference and is totally unscientific? Nothing? I didn't think so.

Keep 'em coming. I've got enough fact and science on my side to keep this debate going until the last glacier melts and the entire eastern seaboard is underwater.

[RedWingFan]

WASHINGTON, Jan. 25— After examining climate data extending back nearly 100 years, a team of Government scientists has concluded that there has been no significant change in average temperatures or rainfall in the United States over that entire period.

Wrong again! Owned!

First of all, it was published in 1987.

Yeah, before Phil Jones was able to include his fake data into the #'s. The earth has cooled since '98. You're basing your armaggedon on a whole 11 years of Earth's existence!
As much data that is shared in the "scientific" community, I assume all your data includes IPCC's fake #'s. The fact that it's cooled the past 12 years should give you relief that maybe our distruction is not at hand. You just keep repeating the lie.

[7 Wishes]

Dude, 1998 was an aberration. Look at the TREND over a course of 150 years and it all looks different. Open your eyes.

[hoagiepete]

Did you see Gore was at it again, claiming the past weekend's storms in the NE and a number of other events are attributable to manmade GW.

He's a doozy.

[conversationpc]

Did you see Gore was at it again, claiming the past weekend's storms in the NE and a number of other events are attributable to manmade GW.

He's a doozy.

I love how the man-maders have a fit when anti-GWers point out weather-related events to supposedly show that global warming is crap but then, like Gore does here, they do the exact same thing.

[Monker]

Did you see Gore was at it again, claiming the past weekend's storms in the NE and a number of other events are attributable to manmade GW.

He's a doozy.

I love how the man-maders have a fit when anti-GWers point out weather-related events to supposedly show that global warming is crap but then, like Gore does here, they do the exact same thing.

Too bad that not so many will admit that both are being idiots.

[7 Wishes]

Except there is NO DENYING the fact that globally, temperatures, as well as methane, CO2, and other atmospheric toxins have increased steadily to unprecedented levels and unprecedented rates. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record happened in the 2000's, 1998 being (as the hottest year ever and therefore the stump for unknowing climate change dittoheads) the hottest ever. And so on and so forth. Just as in the Obama / Healthcare thread, no one addresses the facts that are posted here that support climate change because they've politicized it. That is the specialty of the GOP - that, inaction, and debt- and defecit- spending.

[Monker]

Except there is NO DENYING the fact that globally, temperatures, as well as methane, CO2, and other atmospheric toxins have increased steadily to unprecedented levels and unprecedented rates. Nine of the 10 hottest years on record happened in the 2000's, 1998 being (as the hottest year ever and therefore the stump for unknowing climate change dittoheads) the hottest ever. And so on and so forth. Just as in the Obama / Healthcare thread, no one addresses the facts that are posted here that support climate change because they've politicized it. That is the specialty of the GOP - that, inaction, and debt- and defecit- spending.

All I am saying is that Gore exaggerates so much that he sounds no different then those who claim the Earth is actually cooling down. Facts are the facts....but going on a limb and saying a specific storm was caused by global warming is as ridiculous as claiming it's cold and snowy in the winter so there is no global warming.

And, for the record, I have stated in this thread that global warming is a FACT and it shouldn't even be disputed. If man has caused it, and to what degree, is what should really be up for debate. The extremes on both sides refuse to see what are facts and what are opinions. It's an OPINION that man has created the majority of GW. However, it is an EDUCATED opinion...as opposed those who want to deny it who seem to be completely ignorant of everything other then how to cut and paste the same old rants, from the same old people, based on faulty facts.

[kmjrr]

The Global Warmers fail to mention that the "norm" for Earth is an Ice Age climate. As stated in the link below, "glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interrupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago."

All of recorded human history has conveniently occurred during this current interglacial period that is due to end soon. We think the weather is how it's always been and will always be if we didn't burn fossil fuels. That couldn't be farther from the truth. For the coming Ice Age, we're not talking about fractions of a degree change in average temperature or even a few degrees like GWers talk about - how about a drop of more than 10 degrees Celsius. There is nothing we can do about it. Some day there will again be a 1 mile high glacier sitting on top of New York City.
More:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Ray

[Monker]

And, this is exactly what I'm talking about. A mere 20mins research showed me that the owner and writer of that site has NO scientific background AT ALL. He has produced ZERO peer reviewed papers...because he's not knowledgeable in the field and would probably be laughed at. What is on that site is pure opinion, uneducated opinion, and is aimed at people like you who only care to have their own opinions validated. Therefore he is simply advancing his own political agenda...since he is employed by THE COAL INDUSTRY. Of course he is going to do what he can to demonize anything that supports global warming. Geez, all you have to do is look at the other links at geocraft.com to realize that climate is definitely not his forte...

Again, it's the same old crap from some other biased source with a vested interest in the US burning as much coal as it can.

The Global Warmers fail to mention that the "norm" for Earth is an Ice Age climate. As stated in the link below, "glacial cycles of about 100,000 years are interrupted by brief warm interglacial periods-- like the one we enjoy today. Interglacial periods of 15,000- 20,000 years provide a brief respite from the normal state of our natural world-- an Ice Age Climate. Our present interglacial vacation from the last Ice Age began about 18,000 years ago."

All of recorded human history has conveniently occurred during this current interglacial period that is due to end soon. We think the weather is how it's always been and will always be if we didn't burn fossil fuels. That couldn't be farther from the truth. For the coming Ice Age, we're not talking about fractions of a degree change in average temperature or even a few degrees like GWers talk about - how about a drop of more than 10 degrees Celsius. There is nothing we can do about it. Some day there will again be a 1 mile high glacier sitting on top of New York City.
More:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

Ray

[kmjrr]

And, this is exactly what I'm talking about. A mere 20mins research showed me that the owner and writer of that site has NO scientific background AT ALL. He has produced ZERO peer reviewed papers...because he's not knowledgeable in the field and would probably be laughed at. What is on that site is pure opinion, uneducated opinion, and is aimed at people like you who only care to have their own opinions validated. Therefore he is simply advancing his own political agenda...since he is employed by THE COAL INDUSTRY. Of course he is going to do what he can to demonize anything that supports global warming. Geez, all you have to do is look at the other links at geocraft.com to realize that climate is definitely not his forte...

Again, it's the same old crap from some other biased source with a vested interest in the US burning as much coal as it can.

I am an engineer. I have a science background. It is against my nature to look at 10 years, 100 years of data and be able to extrapolate that into global warming. Yet I don't doubt that burning fossil fuels may be warming our planet. I only quoted the information from that source relevant to the impending ice age, information that you can find many places and which is not disputed - that ice ages last around 100,000 years followed by a corresponding interglacial period of around 15,000 to 20,000 years. We are well near the end of the current interglacial period. That is not "pure opinion". The other information may be. But my point is that another ice age is coming. I have never heard or read that scientists, or the majority of scientists, etc., believe that Global Warming is going to ward off the impending ice age. Is it ever addressed?

Ray

[7 Wishes]

I love those "clean coal" commercials about as much as those anti-healthcare ads that tell the very people the plan will help that it will hurt them. People are so easily blindsided by Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Brother that they don't even know what's hitting them anymore.

[7 Wishes]

"He praised a speech given earlier in the dinner by the night’s Republican speaker, Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah, thusly: “Orin, he’s the wittiest of all the Republicans. That ‘s sort of like saying he’s the tallest of the Seven Dwarfs.”

Way to cherrypick, FF.

[Don]

UN body to look at meat and climate link

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8583308.stm


UN specialists are to look again at the contribution of meat production to climate change, after claims that an earlier report exaggerated the link.

A 2006 report concluded meat production was responsible for 18% of greenhouse gas emissions - more than transport.

The report has been cited by people campaigning for a more vegetable-based diet, including Sir Paul McCartney.

But a new analysis, presented at a major US science meeting, says the transport comparison was flawed.

Sir Paul was one of the figures launching a campaign late last year centred on the slogan "Less meat = less heat".

But curbing meat production and consumption would be less beneficial for the climate than has been claimed, said Frank Mitloehner from the University of California at Davis (UCD).

"Smarter animal farming, not less farming, will equal less heat," he told delegates to the American Chemical Society (ACS) meeting in San Francisco.

"Producing less meat and milk will only mean more hunger in poor countries."

Leading figures in the climate change establishment, such as Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chairman Rajendra Pachauri and Lord (Nicholas) Stern, have also quoted the 18% figure as a reason why people should consider eating less meat.

The 2006 report - Livestock's Long Shadow, published by the UN Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) - reached the figure by totting up all greenhouse-gas emissions associated with meat production from farm to table, including fertiliser production, land clearance, methane emissions from the animals' digestion, and vehicle use on farms.

But Dr Mitloehner pointed out that the authors had not calculated transport emissions in the same way, instead just using the IPCC's figure, which only included fossil fuel burning.

"This lopsided 'analysis' is a classical apples-and-oranges analogy that truly confused the issue," he said.

One of the authors of Livestock's Long Shadow, FAO livestock policy officer Pierre Gerber, told BBC News he accepted Dr Mitlohner's criticism.

"I must say honestly that he has a point - we factored in everything for meat emissions, and we didn't do the same thing with transport," he said.

"But on the rest of the report, I don't think it was really challenged."

FAO is now working on a much more comprehensive analysis of emissions from food production, he said.

It should be complete by the end of the year, and should allow comparisons between diets, including meat and those that are exclusively vegetarian.

Organisations use different methods for apportioning emissions between sectors of the economy.

In an attempt to capture everything associated with meat production, the FAO team included contributions, for example, from transport and deforestation.

By comparison, the IPCC's methodology collects all emissions from deforestation into a separate pool, whether the trees are removed for farming or for some other reason; and does the same thing for transport.

This is one of the reasons why the 18% figure appears remarkably high to some observers.

The majority of the meat-related emissions come from land clearance and from methane emissions associated with the animals' digestion.

Other academics have also argued that meat is a necessary source of protein in some societies with small food resources, and that in the drylands of East Africa or around the Arctic where crop plants cannot survive, a meat-based diet is the only option.

Dr Mitloehner contends that in developed societies such as the US - where transport emissions account for about 26% of the national total, compared with 3% for pig- and cattle-rearing - meat is the wrong target in efforts to reduce carbon emissions.

[Jana]

Bill Clinton Mocks Gore: Start of Spring is 'otherwise known to Al Gore as proof of global warming'...

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2010/03/2 ... the-press/

I miss Clinton. Those were the good old days.

[conversationpc]

I love those "clean coal" commercials about as much as those anti-healthcare ads that tell the very people the plan will help that it will hurt them. People are so easily blindsided by Big Insurance, Big Oil, Big Coal, and Big Brother that they don't even know what's hitting them anymore.

It's called "clean coal" because it's cleanER than standard coal. Perhaps you know some dimwits who think it's actually "clean" but I've never heard of anyone claiming or even thinking, for that matter, that it's actually 100% clean.

[Rick]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10213194

It will probably come as a surprise to most Americans, but the winter just finished was the fifth warmest on record, worldwide.

Oh, sure, nearly two-thirds of the country can dispute that from personal experience of a colder-than-normal season.

But while much of the United States was colder than usual, December-February — climatological winter — continued the long string of unusual warmth on a global basis.

And parts of the United States did join in, with warmer-than-normal readings for the season in New England and the Pacific Northwest. Indeed, Maine had its third warmest winter on record, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports.

NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reports that worldwide the average temperature for winter was 54.9 degrees Fahrenheit (12.7 Celsius).

That's 1.08 degrees F (0.60 C) above average for the three-month period.

Contributing to the warmth was an El Nino (el NEEN-yo), a periodic warming of water in the tropical Pacific Ocean, which can influence weather over large areas.

However, worldwide temperatures have also been climbing in recent years, a warming attributed by most atmospheric scientists to chemicals added to the air by human activities since the start of the Industrial Revolution.

In February NOAA reported that the 2000-2009 decade was the warmest on record, easily surpassing the previous hottest decade, the 1990s.

The report for December-February also said:

—Warmer-than-average temperatures engulfed much of the planet's surface, with the exception of unusually cool conditions across Europe, parts of Russia and most of the contiguous United States.

—The Southern Hemisphere combined land and ocean temperature during the three-month season was the second warmest December-February on record, behind 1998.

—Most of Canada had warmer-than-average conditions during winter, resulting in the warmest December-February period since national records began in 1948.

—Much of Australia experienced warmer-than-average conditions during the Northern Hemisphere winter (Southern Hemisphere summer), with the exception of cooler-than-average conditions across the northern parts of the country.

[conversationpc]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10213194

It will probably come as a surprise to most Americans, but the winter just finished was the fifth warmest on record, worldwide.

I'll have to take a wait-and-see attitude about this since the man-maders have been wrong so often over the last decade. Also, it'll be interesting to note how this "cut-and-paste" will be accepted by the man-maders here even though they deride FF for doing the same thing.

[Rick]

http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/wireStory?id=10213194

It will probably come as a surprise to most Americans, but the winter just finished was the fifth warmest on record, worldwide.

I'll have to take a wait-and-see attitude about this since the man-maders have been wrong so often over the last decade. Also, it'll be interesting to note how this "cut-and-paste" will be accepted by the man-maders here even though they deride FF for doing the same thing.

Oh, they'll love it Dave.

[steveo777]

Germans lose fear of climate change after long, hard winter

Published: 27 Mar 10 13:17 CET

Online: http://www.thelocal.de/sci-tech/20100327-26163.html

Germans are losing their fear of climate change, according to a survey, with just 42 percent worried about global warming.

It seems the long and chilly winter has taken its toll on climate change sensibilities despite the fact that weather has nothing to do with climate.

The latest figure is a clear drop from the 62 percent of Germans who said they were scared of such changes just in autumn 2006.

The new survey, carried out by polling company Infratest for Der Spiegel magazine, showed a quarter of those questioned thought Germany would profit from climate change rather than be badly affected by it.

Many people have little faith in the information and prognosis of climate researchers with a third questioned in the survey not giving them much credence. This is thought to be largely due to mistakes and exaggerations recently discovered in a report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, the IPCC.

Germany’s Leibniz Community, an umbrella organisation including many climate research institutes, broke ranks by calling for the resignation of IPCC head Rajendra Pachauri.

Climate research has been put, “in a difficult situation,” said Ernst Rietschel president of the Leibniz Community. He said sceptics have been given an easy target by the IPCC and said Pachauri should take on the responsibility and resign.

Last summer the glacier on Germany’s highest mountain, the Zugspitz in Bavaria, was covered over with plastic sheeting to try to protect it from warm rain which threatened to accelerate its melting.

Ridiculous!

[Rick]

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm


Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

This is sad and terribly hilarious at the same time.

[conversationpc]

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm


Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

This is sad and terribly hilarious at the same time.

I can tell that you're just really broken up about it.

[RedWingFan]

http://www.ecoenquirer.com/south-pole-tragedy.htm


Global Warming Activist Freezes to Death

This is sad and terribly hilarious at the same time.

I know. I picture him showing up at the south pole in a tank and Bermuda shorts!!!!