I would like to hear some opinions on this.

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Char, Nov 19, 2007.

  1. Char

    Char New Member

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by trickpony1
    We know what you don't believe now but, please, tell us what you do believe regarding the change in the earth's ecosystem and why Al Gore isn't accurate in his "slideshow".
    There may be some "....not very bright..." people on this forum that want to know your "truth".
    Please enlighten us.
    Thanks.


    Global warming models do not take into account precipitation which acts as an air conditioner. Even if one were to attempt to account for this it would never be accurate as no one could record all the precipitation that falls over every square mile of Earth every day.

    The planet has experienced dramatic tempereature changes hot and cold throughout its history long before there were any burning of fossil fuels.

    Do you know why Greenland is called Greenland. Its because when it was discovered it was all green. Today, it is an icy, snowy, glacier. Glaciers have formed, melted, and formed again long before fossil fuels.

    No one can tell me what the weather will be like 20 days from now let alone 20 years from now.

    1 volcano eruption pruduces more greenhouse gas and effects than all fuel burned in every gas engine ever built combined. How many volcanos have erupted in say the last 100 years?

    Humans account for a whopping %4 of all greenhouse gases. Things that produce more greenhouse gas than humans are the ocean and cows farting.

    The same people that won the Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore admit that alot of what he claims is false.

    UK environmental minister testified in court that 9 specific assertions made by Al Gore in his slideshow were either half true, inaccurate, or downright false.

    Alot of the data that goes into models is based on the last 100 years. In the grand scheme of things, describing the last 100 years compared to the Earths life as a snapshot would be overkill.

    Some places where temperatures are taken are inaccurate as alot of times they sit right next to a heat source of some kind. (Phoenix Sky Harbor Airport moved their thermometer a few years ago, as they found the heat from jet planes affected the temperature read out).

    Mars is experiencing warming as well. (I don't think there are fossil fuels being used on Mars).

    Higher temperatures correlate with increased activity on the Sun.

    The temperature increase everyone likes to freak out about is only .5 - 1 degree over the past 100 years.

    Entire ecosystems have changed over the years. Today where there are deserts, there were once lush forests.


    Who says warming is bad anyways? The history of humans shows man thrives in warmer climates.

    If Al Gore really believed what he says, he would be the first to abandon private planes and his large houses and demand others do the same.

    There is barely any evidence that the Earth is warming. (.5 - 1 degree over the past 100 years) This hardly shows any abnormal warming. There is no evidence that humans are causing any warming. (%4)

    It is more likely that if there is warming its caused by increased solar activity. Humans can't control the Sun.

    In the 70s, alarmists claimed with the same verosity and confidence that the next ice age was coming.

    Is this enough for you? I have more if you need it.

    Char
     
  2. satellitedriver

    satellitedriver Moderator Staff Member

    Ok,
    Not an opinion, but a question.
    Why is the ice in Antartica increasing,(despite what Al say's) if there is a global effect of the planets warming?
    PAX
     
  3. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I'm not sure where you heard this, but it's simply not true. Erik the Red named it Greenland in order to encourage people to settle there. And it's not an "icy, snowy glacier" today: click for pictures.

    If you take the time to do a little actual research instead of cutting and pasting text you'll find that pretty much everything you posted is incorrect.
     
  4. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Actually you should probably take that advice.
     
  5. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Well he doesn't have "EVERYTHING" incorrect, he did get this one right:

    That is true so you gotta give him credit for that!
    :wink2:

    Global Warming has been politicized beyond repair to the point people want to argue about it to win the debate game and nothing else matters. You guys are the same way as like Pavlov's dog, run in circles at the moment the command is given. Instead of wasting time arguing and trying to one up each other, get off your arse and do something in your own life to make a change. If you think tree hugging is for idiotic wussies, fine! Do something then to keep feeding money into the hands of the dreaded islamo fascist who use our hard earned money to feed their causes to turn right around and attack us with. If you think the oil companies and Haliburton are the evil empire, then stop contributing to their favorite cause at the gas pump or utility meter!

    It's assounding that the left and the right have 2 different problems feeding their beliefs but they both have the same solution!

    :censored2: , no wonder we are the laughing stock of the rest of the world!

    JMO
     
    Lasted edited by : Nov 20, 2007
  6. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    I have. Most of what he posted is easily checked with a little intellectual curiosity and access to google.

    Here's a couple of the more egregious errors to get you started:
    Claims that volcanoes emit more CO2 than human activities are simply not true. In the very distant past, there have been volcanic eruptions so massive that they covered vast areas in lava more than a kilometre thick and appear to have released enough CO2 to warm the planet after the initial cooling caused by the dust (see Wipeout). But even with such gigantic eruptions, most of subsequent warming may have been due to methane released when lava heated coal deposits, rather than from CO2 from the volcanoes (see also Did the North Atlantic's 'birth' warm the world?). Measurements of CO2 levels over the past 50 years do not show any significant rises after eruptions. Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year – about a hundredth of human emissions (pdf document).

    There is no correlation between solar activity and the strong warming during the past 40 years. Claims that this is the case have not stood up to scrutiny (pdf document). Direct measurements of solar output since 1978 show a steady rise and fall over the 11-year sunspot cycle, but no upwards or downward trend .
    Similarly, there is no trend in direct measurements of the Sun's ultraviolet output and in cosmic rays. So for the period for which we have direct, reliable records, the Earth has warmed dramatically even though there has been no corresponding rise in any kind of solar activity.

    I realize that many people have made an emotional investment in denying the science surrounding this issue, so I'm under no illusions about changing anyone's position. Believe what you want.
     
  7. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    I see so you really think there is no correlation between the sun and temperature of the earth. You also say that volcanic eruptions are to blame for the initial warming of the earth but now they have no effect.

    Just a summary the hottest body in our galaxy has nothing to do with the temperature of the earth. Volcanos at one time had something to do with it but not since the invention of the automobile.

    One could look at the entire question this way. What is the surface area of all the planet Earth's oceans? Keeping it simple, assume that all the coastlines are completely vertical. To raise the surface by 20 feet, and ignoring the expansion due to freezing, how many cubic miles of ice need to melt to accomplish this?



    Just about four seconds to figure this out. Give me two minutes to type it in.


    Area of water: 139,668,500 square miles (361,740,000 km²), equals 71% of the total surface of the Earth.



    1 Mile Square = 27,878,400 square feet

    1 cubic mile = 147,197,952,000 cubic feet

    convert square miles to square feet
    139,668,500 sq miles of water x 27,878,400 =

    3,893,734,310,400,000. Sq ft of water

    X 20 foot increase in height

    77,874,686,208,000,000. CUBIC FEET of water

    Divide by 147,197,952,000 to get cubic miles

    529,047.35 CUBIC Miles of arctic ice would have to melt to produce a 20 foot increase in the height of the oceans.

    the following fact is from:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20070805134437/http://www.hotfact.com/facts-about-the-north-pole.html

    • The ice at the North Magnetic Pole has no land under it. The Arctic ice cap floats. It is 2 to 3 meters (6.5 to 10 feet) deep and is the size of the United States during the winter months. Half of this ice melts in the summer.



    The united states is appx 2,881,016 square miles
    X 27,878,400 = 80,318,116,454,400 square feet

    80,318,116,454,400 square feet at 10 feet it is 803,181,164,544,000 cubic feet
    803,181,164,544,000 / 147,197,952,000 =

    5456.5 cubic miles is the size of the arctic ice cap


    529,047.35 / 5456.5 = 96.96



    The equivalent of 97 arctic ice caps would have to melt to produce a 20 feet increase in the heights of the oceans


    I know Jones it sounds better to you if you just do not check your facts. Another one is that the glacier in Greenland has been melting for 100 years. For a period before that it was expanding. While you do your "fact check on the internet" see if you can figure out how many ice caps there are.
     
  8. brazenbrown

    brazenbrown New Member

    I said this in another thread...Are you proving me wrong or did you just have what we'll call a moment of frustration?? (I saw what was censored)
    Mac,
    I appreciate your comments as I take you as a open minded, call em as you see it kind of guy! (mean't as a compliment)

    Also, I'd rather live in what you call " the laughing stock of the rest of the world!" than live in any of those Countries you believe think that of us.:happy2:

    As far as the Global Warming debate I'll sit this one out (for now) and watch all the fun from the sidelines!

    Is it getting hot in here?? (Pun intended) :angry:
     
  9. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    It has nothing to with "what I think". I'm a truck driver, not a scientist. But just to be clear, the supposed correlation we are talking about is not between the "sun and the temperature of the earth", which is obvious. It's between solar activity and the current higher temperatures.
    Like I said, I'm not a scientist, so if I want to know the answer I check with people who actually study this stuff.
    I linked this study by Peter Laut and colleagues in my earlier post, but I get the impression you didn't bother to read it. It's not very long, and the last graph pretty much sums it all up

    Here's another paper fom Max Planck:
    Although the changes in the two values tend to follow each other for roughly the first 120 years, the Earth’s temperature has risen dramatically in the last 30 years while the solar brightness has not appreciably increased in this time. click for full article


    Once again, "I" don't "say" anything. I'm not a scientist and I don't study volcanoes. And once again, noone is saying that they "have no effect". Char said:
    "1 volcano eruption pruduces more greenhouse gas and effects than all fuel burned in every gas engine ever built combined."
    People who actually do study volcanoes and their effect on the planet have already covered this. I linked a study by the British Geological Survey on precisely this issue, but once again it appears you failed to read it. Here it is again.

    In fact, all the volcanic activity over the entire world for one entire year emits 130-230 teragrams carbon dioxide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano). In contrast, human activities produce over 7000 teragrams/year. So, volcanoes emit only 3% the amount that humans do.

    I read over the rest of your post, and while it may or may not be accurate, I'm not sure I see your point. I can't see where it has anything to do with anything I said.

    I pointed out that Char has a lot of his "facts" wrong. I honestly have no interest in debating global warming. I'll leave that up to the smarty pants scientists. :wink2:
     
  10. wkmac

    wkmac Well-Known Member

    Not sure what I said is something you posted in another thread as I guess I missed it completely so what I said had no connection to you as to my intent. I'll do better and read all the threads and posts from here on so I get it right!
    :happy-very:


    Also if you liked Peanut and Jose "on a steek", go to the "Achmed the Dead Terrorist" thread and check out that video. First time I saw it I laughed till I cried. We've all seen it so much at work, that something will happen and someone will reply, "I Kill You!" We even have our supervisor doing it as several weeks ago he walked by and asked if we had looked at something yet and we told him no we hadn't and he responded in that Achmed voice, "I Kill You!" We all fell out!
    :happy-very:
     
  11. brett636

    brett636 Well-Known Member

    This is one fact that a lot of global warming alarmists seem to like to ignore. While one ice cap is shrinking, the other is growing. In fact the amount of ice in antarctica is at record levels and continues go grow. Another fact is that less than half of the world's climatologists agree that global warming is a real threat. Anyone rooted in the scientific community can confirm this. Even NASA is starting to debunk the global warming myth

    Global warming is a myth and Al Gore is a moron who doesn't deserve the Nobel Peace prize he just won.
     
    Last edited: Nov 20, 2007
  12. Char

    Char New Member

    [​IMG]

    Sure likes like an increase in solar activity over the last 100 years to me.

    Char
     
  13. Char

    Char New Member

    Of everything I listed you could only attempt to attack 3 or 4. For every scientist you put out there that trumps your side I can throw one right back at you that disagrees. My point is that global warming is just another attempt at a power grab by people who want to control your lives, and who will no doubt not be forced to live the lifestyle that they preach we should live. Its typical, 1 set of rules for the elite, and 1 set of rules for us the unwashed peasants that fuel their greed and power.

    By the way, there is no evidence that man is causing warming of the planet. Those that say man made global warming is settled and no longer debateable are simply trying to fast track their tyrranous reign.

    If you are not interested in this subject why did you post?

    And your final sentence "I'll leave that up to the smarty pants scientists." is the most disturbing of all and is indicitive of a larger problem that face us all. Leave it up to the scientists (or whos payroll they are on). Leave it up to the mob bosses in Teamsters to decide whats best. Leave it up to the corrupt politicians to decide whats best. Leave it up to the UN. Leave it up to someone else to make decisions that will govern your life. Leave it up to people who only care about their own power and screw over the rest of us that prop them up.

    Char
     
  14. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    It's not increasing, at least as of march 2006:
    Measurements of Time-Variable Gravity Show Mass Loss in Antarctica


    This is from a study done in 2005:
    Retreating Glacier Fronts on the Antarctic Peninsula over the Past Half-Century

     
  15. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    Trust me, you don't want me to go through that whole list. And I don't want to either so you don't have to worry about it :wink2:. If anyone is really interested it's not that hard to fact check all that stuff, but it does take a lot longer than it took you to cut 'n paste from wherever you found it (I'm guessing your inbox).

    Well, have at it then. The science is all I really care about, so I'm interested. If you can find one that thinks volcanoes emit more CO2 than people do, I'll be impressed. I don't "have a side" by the way. That just seems like an odd thing to say.

    The scientists at NASA seem to think differently, but I guess it's all part of their plan to "fast track their tyrranous reign":
    Finally, scientists are almost certain that warming during the last 50 years was caused by human activity because models can’t reproduce the observed temperature trend without including a rise in greenhouse gases.

    This seems to have very little to do with anything I posted, but you're on a roll! You tell'em!

    The graph you posted does not chart the corresponding rise in global temperatures over those years, so in and of itself it doesn't tell us anything about the correlation between solar activity and global temperatures. In addition it suffers from the same arithmetic errors cited in Peter Laut and colleague's study. Which, by the way actually does have a graph charting the correlation (or lack thereof) between solar activity and global temps.
     
  16. DS

    DS Fenderbender

    global warming .....................I LIKE IT!

    Niagara falls freezes....winter 1932
     
  17. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Here is a pretty good article from a Gore Bull warming fan. It puts some of the things claimed by the activists in perspective.


    https://web.archive.org/web/2010030...rings/2007/energy/21mar/lomborg_testimony.pdf

    Jones just for you this article takes the opposite view of the sun and heat that you do. One thing about the internet is you can find articles and I can find articles that take the opposite view. When you do not think the sun warms the earth it is good for a great laugh.

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=67ac2d90-ec56-4460-a831-75aacc20670d

    Of course here is another view of solar cycles for you.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

    Since you want to bring up NASA. The head of NASA downplays global warming in this article.


    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/06/01/MNG2LQ5NMM1.DTL


    This one for fun. A 15 year old girl takes on NASA about global warming.

    http://newsbusters.org/node/13282

    It would be easy to keep posting links to articles all night but this is peak season and that would just be silly. I can look at the sun and tell it is hot. Life can be simple sometimes. Sometimes it just seems like some people are so arogant to think we can damage the earths climate.
     
  18. Jones

    Jones fILE A GRIEVE! Staff Member

    It is a good article, but I'm not sure why you posted it. Your position, as near as I can tell, is that global warming is a hoax of some sort. From the first page:
    This is a good example of of why, when you're researching a scientific issue, you should try and stay as as close to the source data as possible, rather than having it interpreted for you by a third party spinmeister.
    It's a particularly good example because the research in question has already been referenced in this thread. Twice. By me.
    Even if you had followed the links I posted (and I am starting to wonder about that) you could be forgiven for not making the connection, because by the time Lawrence Solomon gets done "spinning" the data for the National Post, it's virtually unrecognizable. If you only read his article you could conceivably come away thinking, as you apparently did, that Sami Solanki and the Max Planck Society (for whom he does research), have drawn a conclusive link between the current global warming and solar activity. In fact, they reached exactly the opposite conclusion. Here's the original press release directly from the Max Planck Society: click.
    Scroll down and you'll see Sami Solanki's research credited. Here's a quote on the whole deal from Solanki himself:
    Now go back and read that article you posted, keeping in mind that they are supposedly talking about the same research. It's like the twilight zone.

    This is potentially interesting, but I looked in vain for reference to any research that Habibullo Abdussamatov has done to support his theory. He claims to be reaching the exact opposite conclusion of the researchers at the Max Planck Society, who gave a good accounting of their methodology, but he doesn't give any clues as to why. In fact he doesn't cite any research at all. His fellow scientists find this troubling as well:
    A climatologist who dismisses the greenhouse effect? Only in Russia...:happy2:

    Michael Griffin was speaking as a political appointee, not a scientist, and for good reason. He's an aerospace engineer by training, not a climatologist. NASA's head climatologist disagreed with him pretty vehemently:
    Jerry Mahlman, a former top scientist at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration who is now at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said Griffin’s remarks showed he was either “totally clueless” or “a deep anti-global warming ideologue.”

    Kristen Byrnes is interesting. If I read her website right she pretty much claims to debunk the work of literally hundreds of climate researchers. That seems like a tall order for a 15 year old girl. She has written some pretty harsh assessments of Al Gore and James Hansen, and documented what she says are severe quality problems with temperature stations. I don't see much reference to actual data or peer reviewed research, but she's still young.
     
  19. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member


    Actually my position is the earths temperature changes. This is not doom and gloom like many would suggest. This is a normal thing. I also think the sun provides heat to the earth. I do not need to read an article off the Internet to tell me otherwise. I posted this link because this scientist is one of the main ones Gore used to support his film.(Of course if it wasn't for this film no one would even listen to someone talking about global warming.) He says clearly that all the doom and gloom is not likely. He is also one of the main ones that believe that humans cause this global warming.

    The article about the little girl was for entertainment. It also was nice to see someone so young so able to think for herself and be able to question what others tell her is fact.

    I know you will never see the big picture but why can you not question NASA? They are taking positions on both sides of your debate. They have no problem launching Rockets into space burning tons of fuel. Could it be that they are like every other government agency and just want more funding?

    My broader point was that every goggle search I did returned over one million articles on each sub topic. There was even one that had 15000 scientists supporting the article that you found someone trying to discredit. I had also found that one. Unlike some I do not need to read an Internet article to form my opinion. I sometimes find it amusing that people post an opinion on here and link to an article and somehow that makes them feel that opinion is now fact.

    Oh yes the reason I posted the little math problem earlier. In Gores movie he said that sea level were going to rise by 20 feet. I was just saying no I do not think they will. My point being that all of these things that you think are fact about humans causing global warming and it being the end of the world, probably not. I guess I would say likely not.

    I am not a scientist. My studies were in economics and that was a very long time ago. I can not prove my opinions are facts. I will not take your opinions as facts. I do think that you guys that are towing the party line on global warming are silly at the very least.

    Oh yes before I forget you mock the guy dismissing the green house effect. I see this as what you are doing when you say the sun does not make the earth warmer.


    Now I am off to my peak season hell. This is the last year I do CPU work if I have my choice.
     
  20. av8torntn

    av8torntn Well-Known Member

    Oh yes Jones and back to your original post when you claim that everything he posted was incorrect. I still say you need to check your facts a little closer. I see multiple things in that article that are fact or widely accepted as fact.