Global Warming

Site Issues 2005 Archive Room
#1

High Horse…sorry you took it that way. But I do have something to say about your global Warming.

Pseudo science does not make it fact.

http://www.hooverdigest.org/013/berkowitz.html

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/blog/index.php?p=1046

It would appear that chicken little is right to be worried but there is nothing that can be done about nature. Warming and cooling of the Earth’s atmosphere is a recurring series of events…perhaps you have never heard of the Ice Age?

How can man ever compete with the “pollution” from nature. Visit your local volcanoe and have a group hug.
:lol:

#2

Uncalled for mate. So you say greenhouse gases dont contribute to Global Warming. Fine then thats your belief. I dont happen to believe it.

#3

global warming, evolution, and bacteria are not real :twisted:

#4

Apparrantley though the Hoover press is real, here more of their Blather:

http://www.hooverdigest.org/052/hanson.html

#5

There is no conclusive evidence for anthropogenic global warming. The fact that the word “belief” in it is being bandied around is dangerous in science - science is not based on belief, it is based on fact and epidemiology. When someone shows me conclusive scientific proof of anthropogenic global warming, I shall accept it. Until then, I cannot accept that anything is going on except the normal climactic variations.

Hell, the “hockey stick” model from Mann et al that Kyoto is based on is fundamentally flawed - the zero point is after the mediaeval warm period (which people often forget), and when the model was fed random data, it still fitted the magical “hockey stick” to it. And it’s no wonder that the new breeds of climatologists support it - their government funding depends on it! This is interesting: http://ff.org/centers/csspp/library/co2weekly/2005-02-25/Idso.htm

Just think back to the global cooling scare of the 60s and 70s: http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/cooling1.pdf

Environmentalism is the new religion, and anthropogenic global warming is the new God.

Worthwhile reads include:

http://www.junkscience.com
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk
http://www.greenspin.blogspot.com/

#6

Interesting reading. I know the world has been diffent temperatures throughout its history. Im still not convinced though that 200 years of burning fossil fuels hasnt made any impact.

Editted to add this:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/climate.html

#7

An interesting graphic: note the ice age at the end of the Ordovician when CO2 levels are an order of magnitude greater than they are today:

And on a shorter timescale, we’re still quite a bit colder than we were during the Medieval Warm Period (simple graphic):

The Medieval Warm Period was when Greenland was indeed green, and was settled by Vikings. Cantebury was also almost on the coast.

Better graphic with a scale:

#8

Nice graphs.

#9

I would guess you mean the USA here right? Thats uncalled for friend. :wink:

#10

It is my belief that given the age of the planet, the duration of natural cycles and the relative infantile age and time span of human existance, we cannot hope to truly understand the global cycles for decades, maybe centuries. 20 years of sampling is just not scientifically valid.
I’m not saying that we can’t or shouldn’t be doing things that makes sense. Let’s just make sure that what we do is truly helping, that we understand the problem, and that we don’t cause unnecessary harm in the actions we take.
It’s a long walk to most places we live in…food for thought if we are causing global warming as all the cars - and other antique vehicles- should all be sent to the scrapyard or the museum. The winters will be colder too…as you can’t burn wood, heating oil or anything else - as you would be contributing to the problem. Heck, the only choice you have is to leave behind every plastic item you have and start walking. When you reach the ocean, stop and build your all-natural cabana and learn how to fish.
If you aren’t prepared to do so, then I suggest you reconsider talking up Kyoto.

#11

I would guess you mean the USA here right? Thats uncalled for friend. :wink:[/quote]

Mike, before you troll on. Please read this, provided by your own government agency. The US is the worlds biggest emitter:

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/emissionsindividual.html

#12

Sorry haven’t been here for a couple of days, had to comment on this though. Greenhouse gases have very little to do with the destruction of the Ozone layer, look it up these are two very diffeerent processes that are, as here, often confused.

#13

Sorry haven’t been here for a couple of days, had to comment on this though. Greenhouse gases have very little to do with the destruction of the Ozone layer, look it up these are two very diffeerent processes that are, as here, often confused.[/quote]

Quite - two completely separate issues. Destruction of the ozone layer is to do with a catalytic reaction caused by CFCs. But given that journos know 4/5 of feck all about science, they wouldn’t be able to tell the difference - hence the confusion in the lay audience.

Question to the lay people: If just the northern polar ice cap completely melted, what would happen to the sea level?

#14

Nothing!

As half of it melts each year already and its already in the water.

Nice trick question

:wink:

#15

You’d be amazed at how many people don’t know that though…

Even if all the ice in the world would melt (which would take tens of thousands of years and would require us to be MUCH closer to the sun), the sea-level would rise about 77m.

#16

Just did a bit of maths:

If Antarctica was moved to the equator, and we ignore the albido of the ice (i.e. assume that it absorbs ALL solar radiation, which it doesn’t), assume that the ice starts at 0°C (which it doesn’t), it would take 67 years to just apply the latent heat of fusion to melt the whole lot.

Albido is probably closer to 0.01 or less (that puts it up to 6700 years at least), and the ice starts much colder, so its specific heat capacity has to be taken into account also.

#17

…So if I dont agree with you, Im trolling??

#18

As for the Kyoto Treaty, IT WOULD CLEARLY HURT THE US ECONOMICALLY. That is a fact when restrictions are placed on the US that are not placed on our economic competitors.
The Kyoto Protocol requires that the United States reduce its overall greenhouse gas emissions by 43% for the 2008-2012 average, compared to where they would have been if we continue on the trajectory established in the last two decades.
OK, so how do we do that?

  1. Use less of everything.
  2. Plant massive forests.

Guess what? the natural users of CO2 - our forests - were not included in the Kyoto formulas. So if you replant Louisiana as a pine forest, you get no credit for it, under Kyoto.

So, to summarize…the Germans think the Americans caused or enhanced hurricane Katrina. Although nobody on the planet has any proof of such a preposterous assumption.

Global Warming is a legitimate theory, unproven, with backers on both sides who have political and economic stakes. It is still a theory, unproven until we can relate our current state and trend to historical trends within statistical accuracy. So far, this has been beyond our capabilities.

Everyone agrees that we sometimes are wasteful, and that’s bad.

Do you realize what volcanos do to the environment??

#19

…So if I dont agree with you, Im trolling??[/quote]

Not at all Mike. But you are if you deliberately say that its uncalled for to call the US the worlds biggest polluter after you have the proof that the US government even acknowledges the fact, well then, what else is it called?

Maybe I should have used the word blinkered?

#20

Thats a troll post :shock: When something is not proven, and I reacted. :lol: