quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Mt Pinatubo in the PI


I guess I was thinking more along the lines of the supervolcanoes that supposedly sent the earth into a global ice ages. Pinatubo was major to us but a minor blip for major eruptions.

In any case, do ya think Pinatubo explains why we have the highest levels of CO2 in two million years?
Pretty little charts at site. BUD! The great skeptical denier.


Link


Don Easterbrook
29 12 2008
Abstracts of American Geophysical Union annual meeting, San Francisco Dec., 2008

Solar Influence on Recurring Global, Decadal, Climate Cycles Recorded by Glacial Fluctuations, Ice Cores, Sea Surface Temperatures, and Historic Measurements Over the Past Millennium

Easterbrook, Don J., Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225,

Global, cyclic, decadal, climate patterns can be traced over the past millennium in glacier fluctuations, oxygen isotope ratios in ice cores, sea surface temperatures, and historic observations. The recurring climate cycles clearly show that natural climatic warming and cooling have occurred many times, long before increases in anthropogenic atmospheric CO2 levels. The Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age are well known examples of such climate changes, but in addition, at least 23 periods of climatic warming and cooling have occurred in the past 500 years. Each period of warming or cooling lasted about 25-30 years (average 27 years). Two cycles of global warming and two of global cooling have occurred during the past century, and the global cooling that has occurred since 1998 is exactly in phase with the long term pattern. Global cooling occurred from 1880 to ~1915; global warming occurred from ~1915 to ~1945; global cooling occurred from ~1945-1977;, global warming occurred from 1977 to 1998; and global cooling has occurred since 1998. All of these global climate changes show exceptionally good correlation with solar variation since the Little Ice Age 400 years ago.

The IPCC predicted global warming of 0.6° C (1° F) by 2011 and 1.2° C (2° F) by 2038, whereas Easterbrook (2001) predicted the beginning of global cooling by 2007 (± 3-5 yrs) and cooling of about 0.3-0.5° C until ~2035. The predicted cooling seems to have already begun. Recent measurements of global temperatures suggest a gradual cooling trend since 1998 and 2007-2008 was a year of sharp global cooling. The cooling trend will likely continue as the sun enters a cycle of lower irradiance and the Pacific Ocean changed from its warm mode to its cool mode.

Comparisons of historic global climate warming and cooling, glacial fluctuations, changes in warm/cool mode of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO), and sun spot activity over the past century show strong correlations and provide a solid data base for future climate change projections. The announcement by NASA that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) had shifted to its cool phase is right on schedule as predicted by past climate and PDO changes (Easterbrook, 2001, 2006, 2007) and coincides with recent solar variations. The PDO typically lasts 25-30 years, virtually assuring several decades of global cooling. The IPCC predictions of global temperatures 1° F warmer by 2011, 2° F warmer by 2038, and 10° F by 2100 stand little chance of being correct. “Global warming” (i.e., the warming since 1977) is over!

The real question now is not trying to reduce atmospheric CO2 as a means of stopping global warming, but rather (1) how can we best prepare to cope with the 30 years of global cooling that is coming, (2) how cold will it get, and (3) how can we cope with the cooling during a time of exponential population increase? In 1998 when I first predicted a 30-year cooling trend during the first part of this century, I used a very conservative estimate for the depth of cooling, i.e., the 30-years of global cooling that we experienced from ~1945 to 1977. However, also likely are several other possibilities (1) the much deeper cooling that occurred during the 1880 to ~1915 cool period, (2) the still deeper cooling that took place from about 1790 to 1820 during the Dalton sunspot minimum, and (3) the drastic cooling that occurred from 1650 to 1700 during the Maunder sunspot minimum. Figure 2 shows an estimate of what each of these might look like on a projected global climate curve. The top curve is based on the 1945-1977 cool period and the 1977-1998 warm period. The curve beneath is based on the 1890-1915 cool period and 1915-1945 warm period. The bottom curve is what we might expect from a Dalton or Maunder cool period. Only time will tell where we’re headed, but any of the curves are plausible. The sun’s recent behavior suggests we are likely heading for a deeper global cooling than the 1945-1977 cool period and ought to be looking ahead to cope with it.

The good news is that global warming (i.e., the 1977-1998 warming) is over and atmospheric CO2 is not a vital issue. The bad news is that cold conditions kill more people than warm conditions, so we are in for bigger problems than we might have experienced if global warming had continued. Mortality data from 1979-2002 death certificate records show twice as many deaths directly from extreme cold than for deaths from extreme heat, 8 times as many deaths as those from floods, and 30 times as many as from hurricanes. The number of deaths indirectly related to cold is many times worse.

Link
Atmospheric composition of earth's atmosphere:

Nitrogen N2 78.08%
Oxygen O2 20.95%
*Water H2O 0 to 4%
Argon Ar 0.93%
Carbon Dioxide CO2 0.0360%
Neon Ne 0.0018%
Helium He 0.0005%
Methane CH4 0.00017%
Hydrogen H2 0.00005%
Nitrous Oxide N2O 0.00003%
Ozone O3 0.000004%

Years ago, the ozone layer was being depleted. Now the CO2 level is increasing. Atmospheric CO2 filters UV radiation, so a significant reduction (from 0.0360%!) may result in an increased rate of skin cancer.

Atmospheric CO2 can (theoretically) be reduced by "salting" large areas of the ocean with powdered iron filings, resulting in massive algae blooms. Algae, which are the biggest contributors of oxygen on the planet, rely of CO2. Of course, a massive algae bloom can change the chemical mix of the ocean, with massive fish die-offs.

In short, the atmosphere is a meta-stable mix of gases that have locally larger concentrations. It is not homogeneous by any stretch.

The chart shows the purported CO2 increase over the last 350 years. The lower band is from ice cores; the red band shows levels taken at Mauna Loa, which is currently erupting.

The so-called 35% increase in the last 350 years (allegedly 0.0240% to 0.0360%) is based on widely separated measurements (tropical and polar) taken from different media (ice and atmosphere) and assumed to cause a 1 degree mean temperature increase (without scientific correlation) and is the basis for completely turning our economy on its ear. And the scientific models used? They haven't even been able to predict the temperatures from the past, even when they are known.

But, as Obama's hatchet man says, never let a crisis go to waste. And if you don't have one, manufacture one. Global warming may be real, due to natural solar variations, but man-made global warming is a hideous example of pseudo-science being used to drive political change.

Attachments

Images (1)
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie. You and I along with everyone else on this thread knows that what you just said is a total lie.

Since you demand to be spoon fed, here are your graphs.

Here are more graphs, animated with voice over explaining for you exactly what they mean. Scientists commentary included.

Link

By the way, every graph I've posted has already been given to you multiple times.

Attachments

Images (1)
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?

Attachments

Images (1)
Here is one more simple one for you. It shows exactly what I've been saying all along. Since 1998, we've been cooling. You can see a spike upwards, then a drop back down to around average.

As you've seen in your other pictures, sun activity can dramatically change temperature. The sun was more active in 1998, then went back to normal. It has nothing to do with CO2.

Attachments

Images (1)
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Mt ST Helens not major? all those that died might argue with you if they could.


Its effect on climate was negligible. On a huma scale is was a Very Big Deal, of course.[/quote]

[/quote]plenty of volcano activity every day in Hawaii, plenty around the world add it it all together and wallah enough for a major eruption every day.[/QUOTE]

I'm not really even sure what y'all are trying to claim with the volcanic references. The data seems to be clear that volcanoes and GW are unrelated in recent history. Long range history certainly has a different tale to tell.

I've already stated that we are, in fact, one single major eruption away from a cataclysmic global cooling making my whole point mute and making you all geniuses.

We simply haven't had one in recorded history. Yet.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
If you looked at all of the other information I've posted and all of the videos, it's overwhelming how much evidence there is that completely debunks everything you're saying.


Yet you utterly refuse to post a link showing a decrease in global temps or a decrease in CO2?

One simple chart, Nash. I think this makes the 6th time you've ignored this simple plea. Every single item you have posted so far has been from biased GW deniers whose sole purpose is to deny GW. Not a single post from a legitimate scientific source. Not a single one . . . Unless oyu consider Youtube a legitimate souce.

I'll save you the trouble: You won't post a graphs because IT DOES NOT EXIST. I've looked.

Prove me wrong?


Intensionally saying something that isn't true is a lie.


Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.
Last one was too big, let's try this one.

By the way, if you would actually read the links I give you, none of this would be necessary.

Attachments

Images (1)
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Another one.


(Solar Iradiance chart)

Again, not cited and really petty but it DOES NOT show a long range decrease in global temperatures or CO2 levels.
quote:
Nash, your chart is pretty and shows some interesting data but is not referenced and DOES NOT show a decrease in global temps or CO2 levels.


The one above this post does.

By the way, I'm glad you think that data is interesting. Why did I have to give it to you several times before you bothered to even look at it?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Last one was too big, let's try this one.

By the way, if you would actually read the links I give you, none of this would be necessary.


No, if you'd read your own chart, you wouldn't post it to begin with.

This "big" chart shows a very short range temperature range that does, in fact, show a tenth or two more degrees HOTTER that in 1979. It does NOT show a overall decrease in global temperatures LONG TERM.

"Long Term" Nash.

How 'bout one on CO2 levels. Got anything there?
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
One more.

Do you need any others that prove the sun controls the temperature and not CO2 or do you need colorful pictures?


Yes, Nash, I need you to provide a chart that backs up your assertion that the globe is NOT getting warming. I need a chart that refutes the rising CO2 levels.

This is not a very difficult question and I've asked, what, 8 or 9 times? You are at least delivering the charts charts, they just don't back up your claims that GW doesn't exist.


Here it is again. Temperature drops from 1998.

Attachments

Images (1)
Here's another, CO2 increasing, but temperatures rise and fall independantly. No relation between the two.

Attachments

Images (1)
Sea Ice Lowest in 800 Years




A reconstruction of sea ice reveals the lowest levels in 800 years, according to new research published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

Researchers modeled sea ice levels between Greenland and Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe, from the 13th century to present using data from a natural climate "archive" and from historic human records.

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate," Aslak Grinsted said in a press release. Grinsted is a geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years."
Global Warming (source NASA)

May 11, 2007

Over the last five years, 600 scientists from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change sifted through thousands of studies about global warming published in forums ranging from scientific journals to industry publications and distilled the world’s accumulated knowledge into this conclusion: “Warming of the climate system is unequivocal.”



The effects of global warming are already being felt worldwide. The Larsen-B Ice Shelf on the Antarctic Peninsula collapsed over 35 days in early 2002, prompted by 3°C of warming since the 1940s. (NASA image by Jesse Allen, based on MODIS data.)
I'm not 100% sure about global warming, tho it seems to me that there is much more data to support it than refute it.

It begs the quality of data and its source credibility.

Most of the data that I've consumed indicates a change in the climate happens naturally(approx 150,000 year cycles), however it isn't clear to me how much of that is man-made and/or if we are speeding up the process.

I'm actually much more concerned with pollution. We (me anyway) can see it and recently having local drinking water tested the results came back pretty scary.
Pop Sci had a pretty good article some months back. One thing in particular that I read a month or so ago was about endocrine disruptors. Nasty stuff they be.

I was lectured at length on xenoestrogens a few years ago too(which got me thinking about the cr@p we ingest). They aren't good for us either.

Something to ponder....

Regards
That same ice shelf gets a lot of news. I agree pollution needs to be cut down, but I'm worrying more about buying blankets than ac's.
Link

Antarctic Ice Increasing
Posted on: April 30th, 2009 by Ed Ring

You wouldn’t think so if you read recent press reports. Just like this time last year, the global press is bombarding the public with alarming reports coming from the bottom of the world. From the Discovery Channel on April 28th, 2009 “Huge Ice Shelf Breaks From Antarctica, Fractures.” From National Geographic News on April 30th, 2009 “Giant Antarctic Ice Shelf Collapses.” From Reuters on April 28th, 2009, “New York City-sized Ice Collapses off Antarctica.”

Exactly one year ago, similar stories circulated, and if anything, they were more alarming. On March 25th, 2008, the BBC reported “Antarctic Ice Hangs by a Thread,” a result, they stated, of “unprecedented global warming.” But these reports, both last year and this year, are talking about the same ice shelf - the Wilkins Ice Shelf, an insignificant bit of floating ice that is located on the northern tip of the Antarctic Peninsula. Didn’t it break up last year? How many times do we recycle the alarm over the seasonal melting of the same few thousand square miles of floating ice (ice that floats cannot contribute to sea level rise), off a continent that exceeds five million square miles in area?

Apparently over and over. An excellent analysis posted on April 17th, 2009 by Ron de Haan entitled “The Antarctic Wilkins Ice Shelf Collapse: Media recycles photos and storylines from previous years,” documents how the Wilkins Ice Shelf has been reported by the mainstream media to be ominously collapsing every year now since 1999. Haan also provides satellite photography back as far as 1993 showing the end-of-summer thaws and mid-winter maximums for the Wilkins Ice Shelf. Not much has changed over the past 15 years. Thank goodness for the blogosphere to help us accurately assess the cryosphere!

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?
post resumes below image

GLOBAL SEA SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALY - APRIL 2009
As of April 2009, sea surface temperatures surrounding
Antarctica are mostly colder than average.
(Image: NOAA)

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.
post resumes below image

CURRENT SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE SEA ICE AREA
As of May 2009, sea ice surrounding Antarctica is
about 1.0 million square kilometers greater than average.
(Image: University of Illinois)

What about the ice mass of Antarctica? Along with land based ice, which can raise sea levels when melted into the ocean, another significant indicator of polar temperature is the extent of floating sea ice. As the above table prepared by researchers at the University of Illinois indicates, the actual sea ice surrounding Antarctica is well above average. The black line represents the last 12 months of sea ice area, based on satellite data. You can see the sea ice reached a peak of 15 million square kilometers around September, during the peak of the southern winter. You can see it dropped to a low of 2 million square kilometers in mid-February, at the height of the southern summer. Currently the sea ice surrounding Antarctica is 7 million square kilometers and rising. The red line, however, is what is significant, because the red line indicates whether or not the sea ice is above or below the historical norm. And as you can see, as of May 2009, Antarctic sea ice is about 1.0 million square kilometers above normal.

Just like last year, to assist in the research for this post I contacted Dr. Roger Pielke Sr., a climatologist at the University of Colorado whose blog Link is one of the most balanced forums and respected sources of technical information on global climate anywhere. In response to my inquiry, he wrote the following: “The sea ice around the continent is far above average (ref. UIUC). Also, note the colder than average sea surface temperatures around Antarctic (ref. NOAA). If the media is going to discuss the Wilkens Ice Shelf, they should also discuss this other data. The expansion of the sea ice coverage implies a cooling.”
quote:
Originally posted by 8I:
Sea Ice Lowest in 800 Years




A reconstruction of sea ice reveals the lowest levels in 800 years, according to new research published in the journal Climate Dynamics.

Researchers modeled sea ice levels between Greenland and Svalbard, an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean north of Europe, from the 13th century to present using data from a natural climate "archive" and from historic human records.

"We have combined information about the climate found in ice cores from an ice cap on Svalbard and from the annual growth rings of trees in Finland and this gave us a curve of the past climate," Aslak Grinsted said in a press release. Grinsted is a geophysicist with the Centre for Ice and Climate at the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen in Denmark. "We see that the sea ice is shrinking to a level which has not been seen in more than 800 years."



Oh no, Ice road truckers want be on in a few years,



crap


Those crab fisherman had a time with sea ice this last snow crab season
"Antarctic Ice Increasing"

But artic ice is decreasing at alarming rates. How does a non-scientist weigh all this contradictory evidence?
The eastern Antartic shelf is melting -- its one third the size of the western shelf that is increasing.

The ice melting between Greenland and the Artic is sea ice and would lower the level of the ocean, not increase it.

When Antartica and the Artic Islands were warm, the North Pole was southwest of the Hawaiian Islands -- the planet shifted in its axis, later.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
"Antarctic Ice Increasing"

But artic ice is decreasing at alarming rates. How does a non-scientist weigh all this contradictory evidence?


It's not.

Link

I'm not posting any more pictures for you, you actually have to read that one.

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average. Except for a few areas directly south of the Indian Ocean, and in the area south of Patagonia and surrounding the Antarctic Peninsula, the rest of the ocean surrounding Antarctica - virtually all of the South Pacific and South Atlantic - is cooler than average. This data indicates no reason to believe ocean temperatures are causing overall loss of ice mass in the Antarctic; with the exception of the insignificant quantity of ice on the Antarctic Peninsula, they suggest the opposite.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
Here it is again. Temperature drops from 1998.


Nahs, I swear man. You aren't stupid,. I know it. You can write a compete sentence and use the Google. I know you read my request a few times so I don't know why I am having to repeat myself but here I go anyway. I asked for LONG TERM temperature data.

Yes, it is believed that temps have actually fallen in the past decade. Any idiot can see that temperature variation occur regularly.

But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."

This chart you posted? It shows a net INCREASE in temperatures, dude, from the beginning of the chart to the end. It's a statistically insignificant increase but it IS an increase.

Again I'll request: Show me a chart from a legitimate source that shows a DECREASE in temps over the long haul - generally 50 to 100 or more years. Show me a chart that shows DECREASING levels of CO2.

Then let me know when you give up because they don't exist.
quote:
Originally posted by interventor1:
The ice melting between Greenland and the Artic is sea ice and would lower the level of the ocean, not increase it.


So you accept the data that shows it is melting. Good for you. Now can you tell me why to you not accept the data that shows the globe is warming?

Actually, melting of sea ice would have NO effect on sea levels. But it will have an effect on the sea cutrrents. The Greenland Ice Shelf is melting and is expected to have an effect on sea levle - especially in the northeastern part of the US. I don't know why it would effect just the NE part but that is what is being said.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
"Antarctic Ice Increasing"

But artic ice is decreasing at alarming rates. How does a non-scientist weigh all this contradictory evidence?


It's not.

Link

I'm not posting any more pictures for you, you actually have to read that one.

The assumption in all these stories that report on the Wilkins Ice Shelf, and other melting ice around the Antarctic Peninsula, is that global warming is the cause, and that they are representative of a general melt occurring throughout Antarctica. And if this were true, this would be alarming, since 90% of the world’s land based ice is in Antarctica. So is the ocean warming around Antarctica, and is Antarctica’s overall total mass decreasing?

The answer to both of these questions is almost certainly no. As this recent imagery from NOAA indicates, the southern ocean is actually colder than average.


Nash,

This is a perfect example of your inability to grasp simple facts.

Read the whole post again. A summary: LMM posted data on the Antarctic Ice Shelf increasing. My reply concerned the ARCTIC ice melting.

Then you disagree with me by posting a story on the ANTARCTIC ice shelf increasing.*

Perhaps you never learned that the Antarctic is the body of land at the southern pole of our planet - below South America.

The ARTtic is the northern pole above North America.

This Antarctic data is also a good example of how average folks like you are wholly unable to grasp the complexity of this issue. The fact is that the increase of Antarctic ice is actually believed to be a result of global warming. Link
Last edited by Cookey
Alarming Arctic Ice* melt from one of the schemers in the great global warming hoax, the National Geographic. An excellent video is included in the link.


Link

(The "Arctic" ice shelf is the ice that is on the NORTHERN or "top" part of the planet we call Earth)
quote:
But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."


I've posted links for you explaining that global warming data is flawed, we're not warming. You didn't read any of them.

I posted videos produced by the BBC and ABC complete with graphs, data, and scientists explaining how the global warming theory is political and not scientifically sound. You didn't watch any of them.

I went back through the links you didn't read and pulled the graphs off for you, posted them in here for you to see. It doesn't take a scientist to see the spike in 1998 and the drop right after back to the range before 1998. You completely ignored it.

Logical and rational people examine evidence given and make a decision. You've ignored everything given to you and pretended there is no evidence.

You can believe in global warming if you want to, but you're doing so in spite of a mountain of evidence, data, and the opinion of a long list of scientists that say it's all a hoax.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
But over the LONG TERM, temperatures have risen, Nash. In case you don't understand it, rising temps are called "Global Warming."


It doesn't take a scientist to see the spike in 1998 and the drop right after back to the range before 1998. You completely ignored it.


I "completely ignored" it? I've already explained in detail why it is flawed. Twice.

I can show you data from yesterday compared to today and used that as "proof" that the globe is cooling. Is it valid? Of course not.

I'll address the assertion in a little but more detail, though. 1998 marked the peak of the solar maximum. This is a period of sunspot activity that cycles about every 11 years. Temperatures on earth are effected by these maximums and minimums. We are just about to complete the solar MINIMUM now Nash. Scientists fully expect temps to "ratchet" up again and when it peaks again 11 years from now, the temps will likely be higher than the temps in 1998.

That is why LONG TERM data is important. That is why a ten year period is statistically meaningless. So I'm not just dismissing your data because I disagree with it. I disagree because the science backs me up.

I did look at most (if not all) of the crap you posted from the GW deniers and individuals who disagree. I've already explained why one individual does not refute the vast data suggesting GW as real just a Kent Hovind's stupid stance on young earth creationism is scientifically flawed.

You posted a link to a couple dozen "organizations" that oppose GW. I soundly refuted a sampling of them and showed how they were mostly organizations that were formed for the ole purpose of denying GW and how many of them were funded by Big Oil. Nash, that is not science. It's politics. I note that you completely ignored that post.

I asked you one simple question: Show me one graph that shows a LONG TERM cooling trend. You failed miserably. NONE of your links contained that, Nash. None. Prove me wrong.

I asked you to produce one single chart that shows a decrease in CO2 -- something that refutes the fact that CO2 leaves are the highest they have been in over 2 million years. You failed miserably. Instead, you simply denied that there was any relation to temps and CO2 at all and stupidly asserted your own fabricated reality. You may as well say gravity doesn't exist, Nash. That's how stupid that sounds.
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant. The sampling methodologies in use today cannot determine CO2 levels in anything more than a microscope fraction of the atmosphere. As our atmosphere is not even close to homogeneous one can't make generalizations from them.

Man-made global warming has made Al Gore millions of dollars and is driving the most comprehensive societal and economic change in history, and the objective proof is just not there. Sweeping generalizations are made on the basis of extremely limited sampling methodologies. Again, the models on which the MMGW advocates base their predictions have been demonstrated to be completely wrong. Cookie, I would even state that the scientific evidence supporting manmade global warming is of the same type and order as the scientific evidence supporting biblical creationism.

MMGW is one of those scientific "cash cows" for science. If you request a grant to demonstrate MMGW, it will be approved in short order. Otherwise, no such luck. Same as proving the effects of second-hand smoke and other politically-driven items.

Even so, in the EXTREMELY remote chance there's some validity to the MMGW claims, why put the entire burden on the US? Japan has backed away--I guess they'll have to change it from the Kyoto Protocols. China and Russia are the two biggest polluters in the world. Brazil clear-cuts amazonian forests at an unprecedented rate. Russia and China dump crap into the air; Brazil destroys hectares of green that absorb CO2 and emit oxygen.

If there is a problem, technology may be the only thing that can help us. Destroying the American economy in a futile effort to reduce MMGW is the best way to guarantee doom, in the event it is a real thing.
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant.


Sure ya can, Zip.

If you can believe the scheming liberal scientists, CO2 levels are pretty well documented in ice cores that date back 800,000 years. Link Other measures include ocean sediment absorption and rock cores and, I'm sure a few others, that all point to the same conclusion: CO2 levels are the highest they have been in a staggeringly long time.

Now, except for Nash, no scientist will dispute the correlation between CO2 levels and temps. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, of course. What is not clearly understood is which is the cause and which is the effect but the stuff I have read seem to indicate that CO2 levels rise first, then the temps lag. Others say differently. Still, there is a clear constellation.

Some theories suggest that the CO2 level will dissipate as temps rise causing that may even result a normalization or even an an ice age. Some suggest that this CO2 is . . . Well, there are lots of theories that I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that no one is exactly sure what the long term effects of CO2 build-up is. We are seeing warming at the moment (if you believe the conspirators in this vast scheme to liberalize America).

If you wish to insist that GW is a scam, then you are going to have to tear down the foundation of the scam: That CO2 levels are incredibly high. CO2 is the golden key. Prove the data is wrong and you win the Big Cookie.

Other than that, I tend to agree with all your other assertions. I don't think there is a damm thing we can do about it and it has become a political movement instead of a scientific study.

But hiding our heads in the sand pretending that there is no consensus or correlation is nonsensical.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by zippadeedoodah:
Simply, you cannot assert that the methods of sampling CO2 levels in the atmosphere over the past few centuries is statistically significant.


Sure ya can, Zip.

If you can believe the scheming liberal scientists, CO2 levels are pretty well documented in ice cores that date back 800,000 years. Link Other measures include ocean sediment absorption and rock cores and, I'm sure a few others, that all point to the same conclusion: CO2 levels are the highest they have been in a staggeringly long time.

Now, except for Nash, no scientist will dispute the correlation between CO2 levels and temps. Correlation does not necessarily indicate causation, of course. What is not clearly understood is which is the cause and which is the effect but the stuff I have read seem to indicate that CO2 levels rise first, then the temps lag. Others say differently. Still, there is a clear constellation.

Some theories suggest that the CO2 level will dissipate as temps rise causing that may even result a normalization or even an an ice age. Some suggest that this CO2 is . . . Well, there are lots of theories that I won't bore you with. Suffice it to say that no one is exactly sure what the long term effects of CO2 build-up is. We are seeing warming at the moment (if you believe the conspirators in this vast scheme to liberalize America).

If you wish to insist that GW is a scam, then you are going to have to tear down the foundation of the scam: That CO2 levels are incredibly high. CO2 is the golden key. Prove the data is wrong and you win the Big Cookie.

Other than that, I tend to agree with all your other assertions. I don't think there is a damm thing we can do about it and it has become a political movement instead of a scientific study.

But hiding our heads in the sand pretending that there is no consensus or correlation is nonsensical.


CO2 was higher during the dinosaurs, I'm pretty sure it's higher due to your insistence on this issue, I'm also pretty sure it fluctuates but until the REST of the World goes along at the same time the issue is moot.

Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2):

Link

June 21, 2005

One point apparently causing confusion among our readers is the relative abundance of CO2 in the atmosphere today as compared with Earth's historical levels. Most people seem surprised when we say current levels are relatively low, at least from a long-term perspective - understandable considering the constant media/activist bleat about current levels being allegedly "catastrophically high." Even more express surprise that Earth is currently suffering one of its chilliest episodes in about six hundred million (600,000,000) years.

Given that the late Ordovician suffered an ice age (with associated mass extinction) while atmospheric CO2 levels were more than 4,000ppm higher than those of today (yes, that's a full order of magnitude higher), levels at which current 'guesstimations' of climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 suggest every last skerrick of ice should have been melted off the planet, we admit significant scepticism over simplistic claims of small increment in atmospheric CO2 equating to toasted planet. Granted, continental configuration now is nothing like it was then, Sol's irradiance differs, as do orbits, obliquity, etc., etc. but there is no obvious correlation between atmospheric CO2 and planetary temperature over the last 600 million years, so why would such relatively tiny amounts suddenly become a critical factor now?

Adjacent graphic 'Global Temperature and Atmospheric CO2 over Geologic Time' from Climate and the Carboniferous Period (Monte Hieb, with paleomaps by Christopher R. Scotese). Why not drop by and have a look around?
"So you accept the data that shows it is melting. Good for you. Now can you tell me why to you not accept the data that shows the globe is warming?

Actually, melting of sea ice would have NO effect on sea levels. But it will have an effect on the sea cutrrents. The Greenland Ice Shelf is melting and is expected to have an effect on sea levle - especially in the northeastern part of the US. I don't know why it would effect just the NE part but that is what is being said."

The ice is melting because of a phenomena called "summer." As ice contracts as it melts, sea ice would cause the ocean's level to decrease. Only melting land based glacier ice would cause the ocean's level to rise.

Only last summer, we were warned that Artic ice would completely melt. Not only didn't it melt, it was thicker in parts than ever before -- so much for long term predictions.

Global warming and cooling is more dependent on the waxing and waning of the solar winds as they counteract cosmic rays.
do you see who keeps pushing Global warming? Al Gore, he will make millions of dollars from the manufacturing of Solar Panels and he may be involved in wind Turbines, as long as China and India keep putting out pollution like they are it don't matter what we do we can't clean up the air and it eventually spreads over the whole globe.

in May 2008 issue of National Geographic they wrote the whole book about China and the Air is grey with Smoke and everything is polluted, they have what they call Cancer Cities where they send the people that gets Cancer to die so they won't be in the way. there are Smoke Stacks belching Smoke everywhere and no one cares.

last Winter when it got down to 8 degrees Fahrenheit I thought about Global warming and it seemed colder than usual to me.
quote:
Originally posted by LMM:
Planetary Temperature and Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide (CO2):


LMM,

I asked for a long range chart and you certainly provided one. But this is a little too long range.

Your graph is an excellent representation of the complexity of this issue and why the only rational view is to side with the scientific consensus.

Still, you graph does show a loose correlation over extremely long periods between CO2 and temps.

The huge dips you see in the temp line back in the Paleozoic age was likely the result of massive volcanic eruption or asteroid impact that resulted in covering the entire earth in a blanket of ice from pole to pole. CO2 levels didn't have a darn thing to do with this. Cloud cover (or something similar) did.

I've stated a couple of times in this thread that we are only one volcanic eruption away from an ice age.

Long ago, there was ZERO oxygen in the atmosphere. In fact, the whole makeup of the atmosphere was drastically different from what it is now that comparing the current atmosphere to 600 million years ago is . . . Well, there is no comparison.

In order to win this debate, what you and your cohorts must produce is a chart that shows the complete opposite of what this one shows. It really is as simple as that.

Source Link

Summary: "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."

Attachments

Images (1)
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?


I support nothing like that.

I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

What I claim (and evidentially supported) is that global warming is real and that you people are burying your heads in the sand by ignoring the evidence that I've personally spoon fed to you.

That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

But that has not a damm thing to do with my stance on the REALITY of global warming that is supported by overwhelming evidence that the world seems to deny.
quote:
Originally posted by Cookey:
quote:
Originally posted by Chow:
Why should we kill our economy?

NWO?

One world currency?


I support nothing like that.

I guess I'll have to say it until I'm blue in the face that I do NOT agree with any draconiam measures to reduce CO2 emmissions or give up our lifestyle.

What I claim (and evidentially supported) is that global warming is real and that you people are burying your heads in the sand by ignoring the evidence that I've personally spoon fed to you.

That said, I will step into the political realm and state emphatically that I believe we should all do everything we can to wean ourselves from the teat of Middle Eastern oil.

But that has not a damm thing to do with my stance on the REALITY of global warming that is supported by overwhelming evidence that the world seems to deny.


You've stated your beliefs, I've stated mine

you don't believe me and I don't believe you so we are when we started and no I have not buried my head in the sand.

I know man has made an impact to some degree and certain areas a pretty large degree, CO2 is not one of them. Even if it was, there is nothing we can do by OURSELVES to slow it down, China, India and Indonesia is producing ten times the pollution we are.

All I see is a group creating chaos and trying to capitalize on it, our current administration says "don't let a crisis go to waste"

that's enough for me to stand against it!

Add Reply

Post

×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×