Global Warming where art thou?

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:21

http://www.accuweather.com/mt-news-blog ... s_july.asp

It has been a cold year in general. I like it.

Of course global warming is a flawed idea. Of course it's going to warm up after we get off the little ice age.

Ninny · Post by **Ninny** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:28

Greenland can grow it's own vegetables now http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/f ... 167211.stm

zim · Post by **zim** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:45

all hope is lost..

FUKKET · Post by **FUKKET** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:49

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 27 Jul 2009, 04:54

AL GORE CAN SOLVE IT.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 27 Jul 2009, 05:13

Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere

Mesarthim · Post by **Mesarthim** » 27 Jul 2009, 05:22

cold winter but this summer has been one of the hottest in years. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 27 Jul 2009, 05:30

[quote name="Lumbergh"]cold winter but this summer has been one of the hottest in years. I don't know what the fuck you're talking about.[/quote]

You live in Florda. Come to ohio. 60's and 70's.

Mesarthim · Post by **Mesarthim** » 27 Jul 2009, 06:08

100+ in may/june is not normal for Florida. we might get those kind of temps around august, but not as early as we did this year. it was fucking weird.

Bathsalt Zombie · Post by **Bathsalt Zombie** » 27 Jul 2009, 06:20

It has reached that here in Central Florida in June. It has NEVER reached a hundred before in Tampa. EVER.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Jul 2009, 10:11

[quote name="Noyka"]Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems you state that as a counter point to carbon-encouraged climate change, as if it would require perhaps 100% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause global warming.

Methuselah Honeysuckle · Post by **Methuselah Honeysuckle** » 27 Jul 2009, 11:19

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 27 Jul 2009, 13:52

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems you state that as a counter point to carbon-encouraged climate change, as if it would require perhaps 100% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause global warming.[/quote]

The amount of stratospheric ozone does not exceed 0.0001% on average, and yet it blocks most of the UV B and C radiation that would eradicate most life on this planet.

The gases in the ionosphere amount to something extremely small % as well, since the atoms up there are so far apart, and yet that protects us from harmful cosmic rays. Solar winds/flares would also wipe a good amount of life off the face of the earth if it wasn't for this layer.

Your logic/insinuation that an atmospheric gas that doesn't amount to an appreciable concentration by human standards cannot have any impact on the planet is completely flawed.

beandorkio · Post by **beandorkio** » 27 Jul 2009, 15:04

http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/downl ... ook2-2.pdf

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 27 Jul 2009, 17:28

[quote name="beandorkio"]http://www.climatesceptics.com.au/downl ... ook2-2.pdf[/quote]

I like the first image, at least whoever wrote the article isn't delusional enough to think that average climate change is not a real phenomenon, having doubts about it's biggest influence(solar output increases(although discredited) or other natural phenomena) is respectable. However from then on the article starts to leak credibility because of either plain laziness to look things up(first question below) or just plain intellectual dishonesty.

The first question "What evidence is there that more CO2 forces temperatures up further?"

http://science.widener.edu/svb/ftir/ir_co2.html

CO2 is by definition a greenhouse gas, it helps keeps the planet at a relatively constant temperature, absorbing infrared radiation. Any less/no CO2 would make the planet too cold to live on. It doesn't take a genius to figure out what happens if you increase its concentration. We have a vivid example of it happening right next door = planet Venus, whose position to the Sun although closer than the Earth's, doesn't warrant the fruital average temperatures the planet has if it weren't for its dense atmosphere, rich in CO2(far more than on Earth) and sulfuric acid(unsure if this is a greenhouse gas).

On the 800 year lag phenomenon:

Skip to 6:23 or so and watch the rest of it:

[youtube]52KLGqDSAjo[/youtube]

More on that: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 151248.htm

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 27 Jul 2009, 18:54

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems you state that as a counter point to carbon-encouraged climate change, as if it would require perhaps 100% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause global warming.[/quote]

The amount of stratospheric ozone does not exceed 0.0001% on average, and yet it blocks most of the UV B and C radiation that would eradicate most life on this planet.

The gases in the ionosphere amount to something extremely small % as well, since the atoms up there are so far apart, and yet that protects us from harmful cosmic rays. Solar winds/flares would also wipe a good amount of life off the face of the earth if it wasn't for this layer.

Your logic/insinuation that an atmospheric gas that doesn't amount to an appreciable concentration by human standards cannot have any impact on the planet is completely flawed.[/quote]

Bugger, was that directed at myself or Noyka? ...because I just was asking her if she was insinuating that same thing in much simpler terms.

In short, too little carbon in the atmosphere and it will not hold in heat; too much carbon and it will hold in too much heat. In my personal opinion, we have been warming since the last ice age and this is mostly part of that cycle. However, I also believe that the amount of carbon we are pumping into our atmosphere is contributing to a noticeable increase in the natural warming process. This is why I used the phrase "carbon-encouraged climate change". I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 27 Jul 2009, 19:40

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems you state that as a counter point to carbon-encouraged climate change, as if it would require perhaps 100% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause global warming.[/quote]

The amount of stratospheric ozone does not exceed 0.0001% on average, and yet it blocks most of the UV B and C radiation that would eradicate most life on this planet.

The gases in the ionosphere amount to something extremely small % as well, since the atoms up there are so far apart, and yet that protects us from harmful cosmic rays. Solar winds/flares would also wipe a good amount of life off the face of the earth if it wasn't for this layer.

Your logic/insinuation that an atmospheric gas that doesn't amount to an appreciable concentration by human standards cannot have any impact on the planet is completely flawed.[/quote]

Bugger, was that directed at myself or Noyka? ...because I just was asking her if she was insinuating that same thing in much simpler terms.

In short, too little carbon in the atmosphere and it will not hold in heat; too much carbon and it will hold in too much heat. In my personal opinion, we have been warming since the last ice age and this is mostly part of that cycle. However, I also believe that the amount of carbon we are pumping into our atmosphere is contributing to a noticeable increase in the natural warming process. This is why I used the phrase "carbon-encouraged climate change". I agree wholeheartedly with your closing statement.[/quote]

Yeah it was directed at Noyka, I was just too lazy to go back and quote the right post(and fix the embarrassing grammar).

And I apologize if it sounded harsh, that was not my intention ma'am.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 27 Jul 2009, 20:55

[quote name="Lavabug"]
[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Carbon only makes up .03% of the atmosphere[/quote]

Correct me if I am wrong in my assumption, but it seems you state that as a counter point to carbon-encouraged climate change, as if it would require perhaps 100% carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to cause global warming.[/quote]

The amount of stratospheric ozone does not exceed 0.0001% on average, and yet it blocks most of the UV B and C radiation that would eradicate most life on this planet.

The gases in the ionosphere amount to something extremely small % as well, since the atoms up there are so far apart, and yet that protects us from harmful cosmic rays. Solar winds/flares would also wipe a good amount of life off the face of the earth if it wasn't for this layer.

Your logic/insinuation that an atmospheric gas that doesn't amount to an appreciable concentration by human standards cannot have any impact on the planet is completely flawed.[/quote]

Of that .03% we only produce like .04%

It's really not significant, manmade global warming is complete bull....also the earth has been cooling the last 10 years or so. How do people such as yourself react? Calling global warming climate change.

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment, I'm saying stop politicizing issues such as our environment. We need balance, we don't need to start making a business out of carbon which is what many on the left are doing.

FYI: I'm very pro geothermal energy and tidal energy.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 00:51

[quote name="Noyka"]Of that .03% we only produce like .04%

It's really not significant, manmade global warming is complete bull....also the earth has been cooling the last 10 years or so. How do people such as yourself react? Calling global warming climate change.

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment, I'm saying stop politicizing issues such as our environment. We need balance, we don't need to start making a business out of carbon which is what many on the left are doing.

FYI: I'm very pro geothermal energy and tidal energy.[/quote]

"People such as myself" was humorous. I am neither left nor right. I share views with both but I laugh at the pathetic fucks who fall in line and mold themselves into either.

I've called it global climate change from the beginning. The mild cooling in the last ten years is a smaller cycle within a larger warming cycle coming out of the last small ice age (also a cycle within the larger ice age cycle). Global warming is still a reality. The .04% we produce is significant enough to encourage the warming. Essentially, this is speeding up the warming end of our climate cycle. As the ice melts, an excess of fresh water is introduced into the oceans affecting the surface temperature, affecting the air above (not to mention sea level alterations). Blah blah blah our climate gets much warmer and coastal cities flood etc etc etc and eventually we will hit the warmest end of the cycle early. Of course, pending we don't prevent it with an increasing excess of carbon in the atmosphere, we will peak and then cool toward the next ice age.

We aren't the cause of the warming, we are producing the unnatural acceleration.

On the subject of geothermal and tidal energy, I am with you.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 02:38

And for anyone doubting the warming:

This image is a comparison of 10 different published reconstructions of mean temperature changes during the last 2000 years. More recent reconstructions are plotted towards the front and in redder colors, older reconstructions appear towards the back and in bluer colors. An instrumental history of temperature is also shown in black. The medieval warm period and little ice age are labeled at roughly the times when they are historically believed to occur, though it is still disputed whether these were truly global or only regional events. The single, unsmoothed annual value for 2004 is also shown for comparison. (Image:Instrumental Temperature Record.png shows how 2004 relates to other recent years).

For the purposes of this comparison, the author is agnostic as to which, if any, of the reconstructions of global mean temperature is an accurate reflection of temperature fluctuations during the last 2000 years. However, since this plot is a fair representation of the range of reconstructions appearing in the published scientific literature, it is likely that such reconstructions, accurate or not, will play a significant role in the ongoing discussions of global climate change and global warming.

For each reconstruction, the raw data has been decadally smoothed with a σ = 5 yr Gaussian weighted moving average. Also, each reconstruction was adjusted so that its mean matched the mean of the instrumental record during the period of overlap. The variance (i.e. the scale of fluctuations) was not adjusted (except in one case noted below).

Except as noted below, all original data for this comparison comes from [1] and links therein. It should also be noted that many reconstructions of past climate report substantial error bars, which are not represented on this figure.

[edit] Reconstructions

The reconstructions used, in order from oldest to most recent publication are:

1. (dark blue 1000-1991): P.D. Jones, K.R. Briffa, T.P. Barnett, and S.F.B. Tett (1998). , The Holocene, 8: 455-471. doi:10.1191/095968398667194956

1. (blue 1000-1980): M.E. Mann, R.S. Bradley, and M.K. Hughes (1999). , Geophysical Research Letters, 26(6): 759-762.

1. (light blue 1000-1965): Crowley and Lowery (2000). , Ambio, 29: 51-54. Modified as published in Crowley (2000). , Science, 289: 270-277. doi:10.1126/science.289.5477.270

1. (lightest blue 1402-1960): K.R. Briffa, T.J. Osborn, F.H. Schweingruber, I.C. Harris, P.D. Jones, S.G. Shiyatov, S.G. and E.A. Vaganov (2001). , J. Geophys. Res., 106: 2929-2941.

1. (light green 831-1992): J. Esper, E.R. Cook, and F.H. Schweingruber (2002). , Science, 295(5563): 2250-2253. doi:10.1126/science.1066208.

1. (yellow 200-1980): M.E. Mann and P.D. Jones (2003). , Geophysical Research Letters, 30(15): 1820. doi:10.1029/2003GL017814.

1. (orange 200-1995): P.D. Jones and M.E. Mann (2004). , Reviews of Geophysics, 42: RG2002. doi:10.1029/2003RG000143

1. (red-orange 1500-1980): S. Huang (2004). , Geophys. Res Lett., 31: L13205. doi:10.1029/2004GL019781

1. (red 1-1979): A. Moberg, D.M. Sonechkin, K. Holmgren, N.M. Datsenko and W. Karlén (2005). , Nature, 443: 613-617. doi:10.1038/nature03265

1. (dark red 1600-1990): J.H. Oerlemans (2005). , Science, 308: 675-677. doi:10.1126/science.1107046

(black 1856-2004): Instrumental data was jointly compiled by the w:Climatic Research Unit and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre. Global Annual Average data set TaveGL2v [2] was used.

Documentation for the most recent update of the CRU/Hadley instrumental data set appears in: P.D. Jones and A. Moberg (2003). , Journal of Climate, 16: 206-223.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 28 Jul 2009, 03:11

[quote name="Noyka"] How do people such as yourself react? Calling global warming climate change.

[/quote]

So basically, you don't have a clue. "Global warming" still hasn't been discredited as a valid term for what the planet is experiencing and is still used widely, and climate change describes larger phenomena that are influenced directly and indirectly by this warming(as well as other natural geological processes).

Abzu pretty much replied more than what I would have bothered to because my patience has grown real thin discussing the issue with people who use reason selectively.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 28 Jul 2009, 04:21

Global warming has never been accepted by the scientific community it has ALWAYS been debated.

Abzu, people such as yourself was towards Lavabug, he's bought into climate change hook line and sinker.

I believe in balancing environment with human needs not letting one rule the other and certainly not making a profit off of carbon.

Noyka · Post by **Noyka** » 28 Jul 2009, 04:30

[quote name="abzu"]
[quote name="Noyka"]Of that .03% we only produce like .04%

It's really not significant, manmade global warming is complete bull....also the earth has been cooling the last 10 years or so. How do people such as yourself react? Calling global warming climate change.

I'm not saying don't take care of the environment, I'm saying stop politicizing issues such as our environment. We need balance, we don't need to start making a business out of carbon which is what many on the left are doing.

FYI: I'm very pro geothermal energy and tidal energy.[/quote]

"People such as myself" was humorous. I am neither left nor right. I share views with both but I laugh at the pathetic fucks who fall in line and mold themselves into either.

I've called it global climate change from the beginning. The mild cooling in the last ten years is a smaller cycle within a larger warming cycle coming out of the last small ice age (also a cycle within the larger ice age cycle). Global warming is still a reality. The .04% we produce is significant enough to encourage the warming. Essentially, this is speeding up the warming end of our climate cycle. As the ice melts, an excess of fresh water is introduced into the oceans affecting the surface temperature, affecting the air above (not to mention sea level alterations). Blah blah blah our climate gets much warmer and coastal cities flood etc etc etc and eventually we will hit the warmest end of the cycle early. Of course, pending we don't prevent it with an increasing excess of carbon in the atmosphere, we will peak and then cool toward the next ice age.

We aren't the cause of the warming, we are producing the unnatural acceleration.

On the subject of geothermal and tidal energy, I am with you.[/quote]

How do we know it's an unnatural acceleration? You do know many animals including humans evolved to produce carbon as we exhale right? Logically it wouldn't make sense this would be if that carbon is harmful to the environment. The .04% we produce only raises the temperature like .5 degree or something like that. It's been a while since I've read up on this at all because honestly the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles. Who is to say that this one is any different?

Someone will fire back with "you're ignorant" blah blah blah, really I'm not I look at things skeptically and have never gotten straight unbiased answers to the basic questions and therefore have thrown global warming to a political issue wich is really quite sad.

Geotherrmal could work for 75 - 80% of the US yet it's not looked into, instead money is wasted on wasteful energy resources such as solar and wind wich take more energy to create than they produce. This just further proves to me that they whole "being green" is a money making politicized issue.

Charles Bronson · Post by **Charles Bronson** » 28 Jul 2009, 06:11

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0655100870

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 10:18

[quote name="Noyka"]How do we know it's an unnatural acceleration? You do know many animals including humans evolved to produce carbon as we exhale right? Logically it wouldn't make sense this would be if that carbon is harmful to the environment. The .04% we produce only raises the temperature like .5 degree or something like that. It's been a while since I've read up on this at all because honestly the earth has gone through heating and cooling cycles. Who is to say that this one is any different?

Someone will fire back with "you're ignorant" blah blah blah, really I'm not I look at things skeptically and have never gotten straight unbiased answers to the basic questions and therefore have thrown global warming to a political issue wich is really quite sad.

Geotherrmal could work for 75 - 80% of the US yet it's not looked into, instead money is wasted on wasteful energy resources such as solar and wind wich take more energy to create than they produce. This just further proves to me that they whole "being green" is a money making politicized issue.[/quote]

We know what carbon does naturally in our atmosphere. We know what too much carbon can do in an atmosphere. From that we logically derive what a growing excess of carbon is doing in our atmosphere. I do know that we oxygen breathing beings emit carbon dioxide in waste. This is natural. What is unnatural is the tons of carbon emitted by man-made constructs. We know what excess carbon does. We know we are producing it in immensely higher quantities than it was being produced naturally. We know what the theoretical effect of this would be. We know global average temperatures over millenia by testing various depths of ice, rock, old organics (like centuries old trees) and earth. (The varied climates our planet has hosted have left their marks in one form or another.) We can match this data up with increased carbon emission on a timeline. When you put these things together, you get man-accelerated global warming.

For the record, I agree about carbon profit, assuming you mean the whole buying carbon credits thing. I do not think we should allow the amount of carbon dioxide being released to be released, but those with the cash to spare should not be able to buy their way out by purchasing these carbon allowances. That is snakey.

Wind and solar do not take more energy to create than they generate, even when you take into account production, shipping and installation. I think a combination of wind, solar, geothermal, and other such methods where appropriate would be a positive solution.

Teignub · Post by **Teignub** » 28 Jul 2009, 11:55

From what I am aware, that .5 degrees is in Celsius, which is a couple degrees Fahrenheit I believe, and its talking about our oceans. And thats an average increase in temperatures. Do you know how fucked up our planet can get with a couple degrees average increase in our oceans? Well, its a lot.

To me the whole "Global Warming" thing is a farce and is used by neo-liberals as a scare tactic. A better term is "Global Climate Destabilization." But then we are just arguing over semantics. It doesnt matter whether its natural or unnatural. The planet is fucked up regardless of what anyone says and it has more to do with how many trees we cut down and all the animals we kill (see whales and dolphins especially). The fact that there are only 1% of Old Growth Coastal Redwood forests left in the entire world is outrageous, especially considering we have no clue on how to recreate these incredibly unique environments. We need to use less gas and oil not necessarily for the environment but to stop all these stupid fucking wars. The entire Mid East is fucked up over oil. And why? So these mega conglomerates can rape our wallets for something thats not necessary. There have been fully electric cars that are as powerful as many gas powered cars on the road since the 1950's. Why dont we have these cars now? OIL. Money money money money money. The car industry has always been intimately tied to the oil industry, so when electric cars threatened that tie, the oil industry suppressed any knowledge of these machines. And who owns the oil companies? The Federal Reserve. Which, by the way, has absolutely no ties to the Federal Government, it just uses the name "federal" to fool people that it is run by the Government.

So in the end the whole Global Warming scare is a plot by those who are really in power to distract the public from the real problem: The Anglo-American Banking Empire.

/end rant

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 12:29

Sadly enough, Teggy just spoke 100% truth.

The Federal Reserve is a private corporation. Our money is no longer based on gold standard; it is an abstract concept.

beandorkio · Post by **beandorkio** » 28 Jul 2009, 14:53

I speak as a 34 year old ex-employee of the Bureau of Meteorology in melbz of no political affiliation, for what it's worth.

There was a period of rapid warming over a rough ten year span through the gloryhole era . However, there has been a period of stabilisation and cooling during the 2000s that is undeniable. Our CO2 emissions have increased over the last decade. Temperatures haven't. Computer model projections backing manmade CO2 based global warming cannot account for this last decade. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the theory that people's CO2 emissions are driving climate change are incorrect.

And you won't find anything in the media that will point otherwise. Some observations:

- there are claims that pacific islands are disappearing and their populations have had to move elsewhere. No such thing has happened. No islands have disappeared due to rising sea levels

- some dude had massive publicity (front page of Time, i believe?) saying that he'd paddle a kayak to the ice-free north pole. No-one reported that he had to turn back and abandon his trip due to unforseen amounts of sea ice

- Ice in the arctic is decreasing. But Antartic ice is increasing

Just for starters.

People want to believe otherwise. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the massive carbon taxes and levies that will finish whatever economic advantage the West still holds over countries who don't fall for silly Western trends, such as China and India. I have a problem when the words of many climatologists, scientists, professors, and nobel prize winners saying that human CO2 emissions don't cause global warming are ignored in favour of the likes of fashion designers (Vivienne Westwood), politicians (Al Gore), and mammal experts (Tim Flannery).

Lastly, I am happy to make a bet with anyone on any amount that by the year 2020 that the theories of manmade CO2 global warming will be as rubbished as the millenium bug scare, and people will be wondering how they ever fell for the manmade climate change hysteria.

Put your money where your mouths are!

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 28 Jul 2009, 15:28

[quote name="beandorkio"]I speak as a 34 year old ex-employee of the Bureau of Meteorology in melbz of no political affiliation, for what it's worth.

There was a period of rapid warming over a rough ten year span through the gloryhole era . However, there has been a period of stabilisation and cooling during the 2000s that is undeniable. Our CO2 emissions have increased over the last decade. Temperatures haven't. Computer model projections backing manmade CO2 based global warming cannot account for this last decade. Therefore, it is a reasonable assumption that the theory that people's CO2 emissions are driving climate change are incorrect.

And you won't find anything in the media that will point otherwise. Some observations:

- there are claims that pacific islands are disappearing and their populations have had to move elsewhere. No such thing has happened. No islands have disappeared due to rising sea levels

- some dude had massive publicity (front page of Time, i believe?) saying that he'd paddle a kayak to the ice-free north pole. No-one reported that he had to turn back and abandon his trip due to unforseen amounts of sea ice

- Ice in the arctic is decreasing. But Antartic ice is increasing

Just for starters.

People want to believe otherwise. I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with the massive carbon taxes and levies that will finish whatever economic advantage the West still holds over countries who don't fall for silly Western trends, such as China and India. I have a problem when the words of many climatologists, scientists, professors, and nobel prize winners saying that human CO2 emissions don't cause global warming are ignored in favour of the likes of fashion designers (Vivienne Westwood), politicians (Al Gore), and mammal experts (Tim Flannery).

Lastly, I am happy to make a bet with anyone on any amount that by the year 2020 that the theories of manmade CO2 global warming will be as rubbished as the millenium bug scare, and people will be wondering how they ever fell for the manmade climate change hysteria.

Put your money where your mouths are!

[/quote]

If you bothered to read my second to last post, you'd know that the lag time between increases in atmospheric CO2 and average temperatures like in the model constructed from the Vostok ice core doesn't refute the fact that CO2 does play a role in atmospheric temperature. Small increases in temperature(can be either due to cyclic increases in solar output, fluctuations in the Earth's orbit, or even increases in greenhouse gases) create a positive feedback loop: the release even more potent greenhouse gases from ice sheets like methane and more CO2, producing the big increases in temperature and subsequently additional greenhouse gas increases. This explains the fact that Co2 concentrations increase even more after the warming period, and discredits the idea that CO2 goes up solely after a warming period and cannot be responsible for warming on its own.

*fixed major fuckup on my part

http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc130k.html

I don't care what any politician has to say on the matter, and I'm not in favor of imposing carbon taxes, punishing people for using carbon fuels etc. Rewarding technological innovation in non-carbon energy sources + their use might be a good idea. Nuclear power is not a bad option either, it has become far more safe(whether or not depleted cores are disposed of safely is still contested though).

I'm not exactly looking forward to a climatological catastrophe, but I can't help but notice that there's a strong similarity between what deniers want to be true and the type of evidence(often incomplete or out of context) that they present. In other words I can't help but think there's a lot of wish-thinking going on, because it leaves their unquestioning support of unregulated business at the mercy of laymen voter opinion.

I would like to see evidence that the rate of Antarctic expansion > Arctic retreat, as in cubic meters of ice, by the way.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 28 Jul 2009, 18:21

And for anyone having any doubts on the correlation between greenhouse gases and atmosphperic temperatures:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v3 ... a0.html#a1

I'll try to find the complete issue later on some filesharing networks, haven't had much success with back issues before though but I'll try.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 18:40

Science Journals

http://www.physorg.com/

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 19:01

http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... N220090717

The Bush Administration kept these classified and refused to release them.

Images: http://gfl.usgs.gov/ArcticSeaIce.shtml

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 28 Jul 2009, 19:08

[quote name="abzu"]http://www.reuters.com/article/environm ... N220090717

The Bush Administration kept these classified and refused to release them.

Images: http://gfl.usgs.gov/ArcticSeaIce.shtml[/quote]

For a moment I thought this was something old, then I saw the date. I've heard of some NASA data that was covered up/prevented from being released around 3-4 years ago, presumably because it had to do with temperature increases, but I've never figured out exactly what keywords to use to find it.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 28 Jul 2009, 23:05

I'm glad OBama's Dept of Interior fast tracked it to declassified release for the National Academy of Sciences. It is valuable data for a wide swath of scientific fields.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 29 Jul 2009, 01:43

Don't know how I missed this graph, but:

Straight from the UK Meteorological Office, a favorite source of deniers since drawing short trend lines apparently shows that warming has come to a halt after 1998, when it really shows an average continuous increase of 0.15C every 10 years over the past 4 decades.:

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/p ... 0923c.html

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/corporate/p ... oes_on.pdf

beandorkio · Post by **beandorkio** » 29 Jul 2009, 04:08

Dude

You'll notice the graph has the Hadley Centre as one of these sources.

Ummm, wasn't the Reconstructed Temperature graph also using them as a source?

Didn't hear you complain about that one...even though it was using the utterly discredited Mann data as well.

"these two sets of statistics are used by the IPCC in it's reports" - that's from the bottom of the graph.

I guess you're going to tell me that the IPCC is a hotbed of 'deniers' as well?

What's with this 'denier' talk as well all you warming fanatics use as well? Trying to equate questioning the bogus disproven science behind manmade global warming with denying the Holocaust, "stroke me, for i wish to orgasm"? All part of a grab for the moral high ground, which is what the whole green/warming movement seems to be about.

Deny this!

- last year when the UK parliament signed the carbon bills into law, they were afflicted with the earliest snowstorm for the month for the last few decades

- no rising sea levels, no disappearing islands

- the people pimping manmade global warming and carbon taxes the hardest also seem to be the ones happiest to fly nonstop around the world doing talks and conferences...best believe that the day I feel that my carbon output is having an impact, I'll be rowing, walking, and eating raw frickin food, not flying from conference to conference

If you're so sure that manmade global warming is happening, stop trying to convince me on a silly internet forum - I don't read any of your sources - and make a bet with me. Think up your terms. I'm good for it.

Abzu · Post by **Abzu** » 29 Jul 2009, 05:50

Anyone who has taken a first year statistics course can manipulate the appearance of data to their end by using a shorter timeline.

Lavabug · Post by **Lavabug** » 29 Jul 2009, 06:10

I did not say anything about your temperature graph specifically. What I said was that the UK Met Office data is a favorite of deniers, it's the reason why they had to issue an official statement("Anyone who thinks global warming has stopped has their head in the sand.", a short commentary along with their temperature readings, it's the pdf in my previous post) because of people maliciously presenting their chart with short 8-10 year trend lines('98-'05 is the best example of this dishonesty), when looking at the bigger picture there's an undeniable increase in average temperature.

What's with this 'denier' talk as well all you warming fanatics use as well? Trying to equate questioning the bogus disproven science behind manmade global warming with denying the Holocaust, "stroke me, for i wish to orgasm"?

Are you delusional?

- no rising sea levels

- the people pimping manmade global warming and carbon taxes the hardest also seem to be the ones happiest to fly nonstop around the world doing talks and conferences...best believe that the day I feel that my carbon output is having an impact, I'll be rowing, walking, and eating raw frickin food, not flying from conference to conference

You make it sound as if Al Gore's hypocrisy somehow invalidated the fact of global warming. So basically, with that logic, if whoever signed the accord to ban the use of chlorofluorocarbons happened to use hair spray containing said, we can pretty much dismiss the idea of CFC's role in ozone depletion because if he doesn't set an example, the entire body of evidence showing that CFC's do have such an effect can be ignored.

If you're so sure that manmade global warming is happening, stop trying to convince me on a silly internet forum - I don't read any of your sources - and make a bet with me. Think up your terms. I'm good for it.

I don't get anything out of convincing you, I just don't like it when people spread disinformation about science. Why are you turning this into an emotional, frivolous contest? I like science, its methodology and discipline. It's my passion and hopefully my future profession. I was hoping to make this into a science discussion but you seem more interested in chucking dirt at some irrelevant demagogue politicians and celebrities. I see little/no concern for peer-reviewed scientific literature and evidence on your part. I have had the decency to read every one of your posts and at least read most of the content in the links you've provided, I'd like you to have the same consideration. Anecdotes about errors committed by journalists with no scientific background in the mass media does nothing to advance your argument.

If any single one of the following statements is disproved I'll gladly admit defeat:

-Global average temperatures increase continuously.

-CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

-CO2 produces atmospheric warming.

-CO2 is produced by the combustion of fossil fuels.

-Anthropogenic CO2 emissions surpass the threshold of natural carbon sinks(ie: oceans, trees), thereby effectively increasing atmospheric CO2 concentrations above natural levels.

Ninny · Post by **Ninny** » 29 Jul 2009, 21:42

6 billion of us setting anything on fire that will burn has me worried

Redd · Post by **Redd** » 30 Jul 2009, 02:10

Has any organization been funded by anti-global warming people AND pro-global warming people equally?