DescentBB

Have you noticed the propaganda changed? It seems since summers have been mild recently the global warming deception is less convincing. Anyone remember the ice age coming nonsense back in the 70s?

The current climate change fiasco is beyond any logic. It makes no sense whatsoever. So CO2 now causes cooling and warming? How loony. Since CO2 is what plants use, I imagine the truth is that it causes them to be healthier and bear more fruit.

It is sad to see that many people are so gullible. I realize some know better but for the rest, sheesh, please tell them to wake up! It wouldn't be so bad if these eco nuts kept to themselves. It would give me something else to laugh at. However, they pillage property from me using this nonsense as an excuse thanks to the new socialist united states started in the 20th century.

Well, it is somewhat comforting to know that thinking won't be outlawed since there is no reason to. Thinking is not done by choice. I guess that is the product of decades of government schools.

I agree.

Meh, it's a bit more complicated than that, but I'm not really entitled to a legitimate opinion since I haven't researched much on the subject.

We definitely are effecting the climate to some degree, there's no doubt about that. The problem with climate is it's very unpredictable with many factors to consider, and scientists are considering more and more factors, so they start seeing things slightly different.

The fact that they're starting to take in new information and see things different doesn't mean all of it is wrong. That's silly.

Oh well, here we go again. Everybody knows I have to respond to that, even though we've been there a couple of times already.

thwart wrote:Have you noticed the propaganda changed? It seems since summers have been mild recently the global warming deception is less convincing. Anyone remember the ice age coming nonsense back in the 70s?

a) There are very good reasons for talking about global warming AND climate change. Global warming is, as the term implies, something that happens GLOBALLY. It refers to how much energy is in the complete system. However, nobody is claiming that this energy will be distributed equally across the planet, and that it will have the same effect everywhere. The term "climate change" captures the different responses of the system to energy on a local level.

b) the ice-age scare in the 70ies is totally irrelevant. It was caused more or less entirely by the media, not by any serious amount of scientists. At this point, it was very unclear what would happen. Many already already claimed that it would get warmer with increased CO2 emissions, but a few speculated from a few cold years that we were heading into an ice age. The media, hungry for scare stories (as always), blew this up to no end. The difference between now and then is that now the global warming prediction is made by a wide of range of scientists rather than the media (although the latter have picked up on this new scare story as well)

The current climate change fiasco is beyond any logic. It makes no sense whatsoever. So CO2 now causes cooling and warming? How loony. Since CO2 is what plants use, I imagine the truth is that it causes them to be healthier and bear more fruit.

CO2 only causes warming, not cooling. We know this since 1860 or something, its basic physics, and there is no confusion about that AT ALL. I bet that you won't find any serior climate scientist who would predict that CO2 would lead to a global cooling.

With regards to plants and CO2: Of course plants need it, but they can only use higher amounts of CO2 if they also have more nutrients, water, etc. These high amounts are usually only available in greenhouses, so higher CO2 won't have much impact on general plant health and growth.

Pandora- the evidence that is put forth often for global warming is that C02 emmisions have been rising for a century, and we began with industrilization about that long ago. Therefore, it's our fault. But that doesn't make sense. CO2 emmisions have been rising relatively steadily for the past 100 years, but our number of factories, cars, etc. has been increasing exponentially.

In addition, several other planets and moons have been warming. Which somehow makes me think it might have a lot more to do with THE SUN-which naturally goes through many cycles.

Where did you find a steady rise of CO2 over the last 100 years? It is quite clearly exponential. See here (the small image in the left corner shows the last 250 years)
http://www.countdown2010.net/preciousweb/img/ipcc.jpg

What other planets are warming? The evidence for this is very shaky at best. For instance, people are claiming that Neptune is warming. But how would we know that? The neptune record only goes back 100 years, but a year on nepture is equivalent to 170 years or so on earth. So what is happening on Neptune is that the side facing us is slowly moving into summer!

Also, there is just no way the sun can explain recent warming without CO2. There simply is no concurrent rice in the solar irradiation record. And the small changes that are in there are orders of magnitude to small to explain the warming here --- that's again just basic physics.

also, explain the following data from an \"its the sun\"-angle.

(a) the athmosphere is warming just up to the level where CO2 is concentrated, but is cooling slightly above that. This difference is predicted by greenhouse accounts, but wouldn't you expect warming throughout if it was only the sun?

(b) Satellites show that recently there is an energy imbalance. So more sunlight is coming in that is reflected back into the universe. CO2 theory does exactly predict that --- that light would be trapped underneath the CO2 shield, leading to warming --- but how would you explain this if it was just the sun?

I don’t care…I’m not driving no damn Prius!

Pandora wrote:the athmosphere is warming just up to the level where CO2 is concentrated

And how do they know that is where the CO2 is concentrated? Let me guess, it's where it is warmer More circular reasoning. Similar to that other bad science theory that is shoved down our throats.

Pandora wrote:b) the ice-age scare in the 70ies is totally irrelevant. It was caused more or less entirely by the media, not by any serious amount of scientists.

It is the same type of propaganda used today as it was back in the 1970's

"The sky is cooling, the sky is cooling. We are all going to die." Last year it was "The sky is warming, the sky is warming. We are all going to die." This year it is "The sky is changing, the sky is changing. We are all going to die." Silly isn't it.

Be sure to read the newsweek article quoting scientists (probably on the dole as the ones supporting global warming of today. It may be wise to become familiar with the term "conflict of interest") Notice the temperature chart. Anyone can draw a chart with bogus data.

On the other hand, there sure are a lot of scientists against global warming

The point is that it is all speculation (or just plain nonsense) and is just used to take away property and other rights away from citizens. It is sad how many cannot see that.

The global cooling thing started in the UK back in the early 50's.

thwart wrote:And how do they know that is where the CO2 is concentrated? Let me guess, it's where it is warmer More circular reasoning. Similar to that other bad science theory that is shoved down our throats.

oh come on! you just assume circular reasoning without doing some research? Blind accusations? FYI, there are ways to measure CO2 content in different strate of the athmosphere. Look it up! I am not doing the homework for you.

the problem with measuring CO2 and using it as a baseline for a global warming indicator is that:

- It's not consistant everywhere.
- The \"science community\" (which isn't much better than playground full of 6th graders) argues whether CO2 increase follows or causes a warming trend.
- There is nothing solid in the strata record that points to CAUSE. It's all guess work at best. There is nothing that is no data that reliably indicates cause 100%.

Duper wrote:the problem with measuring CO2 and using it as a baseline for a global warming indicator is that:

- It's not consistant everywhere.
- The "science community" (which isn't much better than playground full of 6th graders) argues whether CO2 increase follows or causes a warming trend.
- There is nothing solid in the strata record that points to CAUSE. It's all guess work at best. There is nothing that is no data that reliably indicates cause 100%.

Well, there is of course basic physics that tell you that CO2 reflects infrared radiation and therefore needs to cause warming. I think it is not controversial (even among the skeptics) that the CO2 and the other greenhouse gases in the athmoshpere are responsible for earth not freezing over, considering how far away from the sun it is.

I think you misrepresent the scientific debate. I think there is no debate at all that most of the temperature changes in the earth's history were - initially! - caused not by CO2, but by other events, such as Milanchovich cycles. So, the earth gets a bit more sunlight, it warms a bit, and THEN CO2 is released from the oceans. CO2 then acts as a feedback that amplifies the warming from the sun, so much that the earth can go from an ice age into a warming stage.

edit, just to clarify: the "follow" or "cause" bit is actually quite a strawman, because no climate scientist argues that the climate changes in history were caused by CO2. The link between CO2 and warming comes from physics and CO2 radiative properties.

It was colder this morning in Port Huron than it has been in more than seven decades.

The Port Huron waste water treatment plant recorded a temperature of 32 degrees at 8 a.m., one degree colder than the record low set Oct. 1, 1935, according to information from the National Weather Service in Oakland County’s White Lake Township.

Amos Dodson, a weather service meteorologist, said no records were broken elsewhere, including at Detroit Metro Airport in Romulus and in Flint.

It currently is 39 degrees at the St. Clair County International Airport.

Today’s temperature is expected to reach 59 degrees. The average high for Oct. 1 is 67 degrees in Port Huron.

That’s why they changed it to…“Climate Change”…

Spidey wrote:I don’t care…I’m not driving no damn Prius!

haha...

Well, it looks like thwart is my very first favorite person on the DBB. ^_~

Pandora, you pointed out some good things, but in the end, the earth isn't going to kill us all because of atmospheric heat, and global warming... oops I mean "climate change" (politically correct 9_9) is still a farce. I remember reading an article on dailytech where a scientist stated that "runaway" greenhouse theories are "totally wrong" because they came about after people assumed an "infinitely thick" atmosphere in order to simplify the process of solving the greenhouse equations.

you know, the really funny thing is that it's been theorized that the earth was in a greenhouse state and everything did exceptionally well. The atmosphere was 3 times thicker. That is one reason (I've heard put forth) that some of the plant fossils are so huge.

Perhaps warmer is better. Perhaps we're just used to a much colder climate.

Burlyman wrote:Pandora, you pointed out some good things, but in the end, the earth isn't going to kill us all because of atmospheric heat, and global warming...

nobody is saying that. The point people (at least reasonable people) are making is that it will cost much more money, suffering and lives if we don't act now instead of later.

I remember reading an article on dailytech where a scientist stated that "runaway" greenhouse theories are "totally wrong" because they came about after people assumed an "infinitely thick" atmosphere in order to simplify the process of solving the greenhouse equations.

People are claiming a lot of things. Have you doublechecked whether it is true?

[quote="Dr Schaffer authored the paper Human Population and Carbon Dioxide”]“The recent lack of warming in the face of continued increases in CO2 suggests (a) that the effects of greenhouse gas forcing have been over-stated; (b) that the import of natural variability has been underestimated and (c) that concomitant rises of atmospheric CO2 and temperature in previous decades may be coincidental rather than causal,” he added. “I fear that things could easily go the other way: that the climate could cool, perhaps significantly; that the consequences of a new Little Ice Age or worse would be catastrophic and that said consequences will be exacerbated if we meanwhile adopt warmist prescriptions. This possibility, plus the law of unintended consequences, leads me to view proposed global engineering ‘solutions’ as madness.[/quote]

Jack Schmitt—the last man to walk on the moon, announced he was a skeptic. wrote:“As a geologist, I love Earth observations,” Schmitt wrote, “But, it is ridiculous to tie this objective to a ‘consensus’ that humans are causing global warming when human experience, geologic data and history, and current cooling can argue otherwise. ‘Consensus,’ as many have said, merely represents the absence of definitive science. You know as well as I, the ‘global warming scare’ is being used as a political tool to increase government control over American lives, incomes and decision making

But you know how sceptics are they are just stupid crazy people.

Pandora wrote:nobody is saying that. The point people (at least reasonable people) are making is that it will cost much more money, suffering and lives if we don't act now instead of later.

Al Gore's video is apocalyptic in an "easy-listening" format! I think we can allow a little bit of hyperbole in ridiculing a junk-science political scheme of this magnitude.

I don't know of a difference in political direction between the "reasonable people" on the side of Global Warming and the unreasonable people. It seems to me that you would gladly dismiss a bad cop (imaginary or not) in defense of your "reasonable" positions. But where do you stand in regard to our freedoms? Ultimately I don't give a damn what you think, or what you believe--if it causes you to hand over powers to people in government that compromise our freedom, then you are an enemy of freedom. Whether you mean well or not can only comfort you (a little) as you face the consequences of your carelessness.

Now There's an interesting slant on the matter. Very interesting ST. Thanks.

Climate change is caused by patchuelli. Damn hippies were behind it the whole time.

SilverFJ wrote:Climate change is caused by patchuelli. Damn hippies were behind it the whole time.

It might be poochooly

Pandora wrote:

Burlyman wrote:I remember reading an article on dailytech where a scientist stated that "runaway" greenhouse theories are "totally wrong" because they came about after people assumed an "infinitely thick" atmosphere in order to simplify the process of solving the greenhouse equations.

People are claiming a lot of things. Have you double-checked whether it is true?

If you want to double-check Dailytech, then you might as well double-check sources like CNN, MSNBC, etc.

I hope this was irony.

woodchip wrote:It was colder this morning in Port Huron than it has been in more than seven decades.

The Port Huron waste water treatment plant recorded a temperature of 32 degrees at 8 a.m., one degree colder than the record low set Oct. 1, 1935, according to information from the National Weather Service in Oakland County’s White Lake Township.

Amos Dodson, a weather service meteorologist, said no records were broken elsewhere, including at Detroit Metro Airport in Romulus and in Flint.

It currently is 39 degrees at the St. Clair County International Airport.

Today’s temperature is expected to reach 59 degrees. The average high for Oct. 1 is 67 degrees in Port Huron.

As noted, nobody expects global warming to be equally distributed everywhere. Here's a bit of global data (just coming back to your "no records were broken") bit)

The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.

NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories200 ... stats.html

Sergeant Thorne wrote:But where do you stand in regard to our freedoms? Ultimately I don't give a damn what you think, or what you believe--if it causes you to hand over powers to people in government that compromise our freedom, then you are an enemy of freedom. Whether you mean well or not can only comfort you (a little) as you face the consequences of your carelessness.

Freedom is a very unspecific term, and people take it to mean whatever they want in different circumstances. For instance, the "Freedom" used to sell the invasion of Iraq is very different to the "Freedom" used to argue against fighting global warming. As far as I can see it, with regard to global warming, it only refers to freedom from taxes, but I'll be glad to respond if you can be more specific what freedom you feel is threatened.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:
Al Gore's video is apocalyptic in an "easy-listening" format! I think we can allow a little bit of hyperbole in ridiculing a junk-science political scheme of this magnitude.

Everyone here understands that Algore has a large interest in a carbon offset company? Now that you do, Algores hyping of global warming can now be simply traced by the old adage...follow the money

After a little digging around I found this graph of temps since the Holocene or when the last ice age was dying:



http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: ... ations.png

You read the graph with the present day temps being to left side of graph. Since you are all bright people I think if one reads the 8000 year ago point as being the warmest, what has the temps been doing since then?
It would appear that global warming's mean average has been steadily declining. Sometimes it is better to take the long view instead of what has only been going on for a hundred years.

Pandora wrote:Freedom is a very unspecific term...

I don't need to be educated on the non-applicable uses of the word "freedom".

First you are ridiculously vague, then you're overly specific (ol' Thorne just doesn't want to pay taxes). Talking with people who maneuver through a discussion like that really grates on me.

Taxes would be used, by some, as a tool for social engineering. That's wrong. That's unAmerican. We're not free if we're being *manipulated* by a minority (by any entity), no matter the face that's put on it--no matter the pretense.

Global taxes and laws would infringe on our national sovereignty. Giving a global entity power to levy taxes and enact laws that the citizens of this country must pay and follow is not only contrary to our freedoms--being under a government that is supposed to be of the people, by the people, and for the people--it's treasonous.

Pandora'a Reference wrote:The world’s ocean surface temperature was the warmest for any August on record, and the warmest on record averaged for any June-August (Northern Hemisphere summer/Southern Hemisphere winter) season according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C. The preliminary analysis is based on records dating back to 1880.

NCDC scientists also reported that the combined average global land and ocean surface temperature for August was second warmest on record, behind 1998. For the June-August 2009 season, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was third warmest on record

Analyzing that, I can't help but wonder if some people are being overly simplistic is assuming that the Earth's temperature can be so readily understood and projected. There are a sh**load of variables that are glazed over in assumptions, if we are to assume this as evidence for Global Warming, even taking into account the extreme brevity of the quote.

It's amazing that Joe Q. public uses this as grounds for far-reaching political decision, when it's certain they don't even begin to understand it.

And after being told to be certain on that, Joe Q. public is asked to consider society and government in a global capacity. You think maybe someone's trying to pull something over on us by overwhelming any real understanding?

120 years isn't very long when you consider how long the Earth has been around

Snoopy's summary:

Climate change is an accurate term, because the climate is in fact constantly changing.

Certain tests, done in labs, indicate that increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere should result in an increased greenhouse effect, leading to increased average temperatures on the earth.

Reality is that there are millions of variables operating to influence climate on the earth, and who's to know exactly how sensitive everything is, or even what the major influencing factors are.

Michael Crichton really convinced me in \"State of Fear\" that we really don't know what's going on. It's easy for us to throw out the \"new ice age\" idea because we're pretty convinced it's not really going to happen, 20 years later. Who's to say that 20 years from now we'll be calling the global warming thing a bogus idea?

Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

snoopy wrote:Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

Learning to live with it…because in xxx many years all the carbon in the ground will be burned, no matter what we do. (with China, India, Brasil and such coming on line)

All the taxes and BS that the weenies want to impose won’t change a thing…except hinder the rights of people.

We need to stop blaming people, and trying to punish people…and get on with adapting to it.

snoopy wrote:Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

We need something for transportation that's the equivalent of what the Internet did for information. A large network of "something" people can ride on that connects to their homes and businesses. It also should be made compatible with other countries "something". It should also take the place of all things that currently move freight. China is in the most need of something like this since there's a large population in the center of the country while most of the jobs are on the coast. A "something" network would/should allow people to easily go from their front door to work much faster. People may or may not need to own their own "somethings".

how about wireless electricity to power motor vehicles ^_^

See... but you're all seeing the \"oil\" problem and missing the \"energy\" problem.

So, we'll eventually run out of oil.

We'll also eventually run out of coal.

And, we'll eventually run out of fissionable material (or at least it will be exponentially harder to refine)

I think we will eventually find ourselves at one of two places: Either entirely reliant upon renewable energy (At what I forsee to be a high cost) or mostly powered by fusion.

Isaac wrote:

snoopy wrote:Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

We need something for transportation that's the equivalent of what the Internet did for information. A large network of "something" people can ride on that connects to their homes and businesses. It also should be made compatible with other countries "something". It should also take the place of all things that currently move freight. China is in the most need of something like this since there's a large population in the center of the country while most of the jobs are on the coast. A "something" network would/should allow people to easily go from their front door to work much faster. People may or may not need to own their own "somethings".

You mean like this

Insurrectionist wrote:

Isaac wrote:

snoopy wrote:Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

We need something for transportation that's the equivalent of what the Internet did for information. A large network of "something" people can ride on that connects to their homes and businesses. It also should be made compatible with other countries "something". It should also take the place of all things that currently move freight. China is in the most need of something like this since there's a large population in the center of the country while most of the jobs are on the coast. A "something" network would/should allow people to easily go from their front door to work much faster. People may or may not need to own their own "somethings".

You mean like this

That's a "something," yes. Maybe it would look closer to a roller coaster? We need an engineer.

Insurrectionist wrote:

Isaac wrote:

snoopy wrote:Here's my question: It seems like all this cleaning up our emissions stuff just delays the inevitable. What's the real, long term solution?

We need something for transportation that's the equivalent of what the Internet did for information. A large network of "something" people can ride on that connects to their homes and businesses. It also should be made compatible with other countries "something". It should also take the place of all things that currently move freight. China is in the most need of something like this since there's a large population in the center of the country while most of the jobs are on the coast. A "something" network would/should allow people to easily go from their front door to work much faster. People may or may not need to own their own "somethings".

You mean like this

I approve of Futurama references.