|
|
|
|
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/26/2008 1:56:55 PM | My apologies Novascotialass. It just goes to show you how people can become so consumed in something they can't see the wood for the trees.
Thank you. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 1/26/2008 2:34:09 PM | I actually agree that co2 is the main (but probably not the only ause of global warming) but where i dispute is how bad the effects will be or whether there will actually be any notable warming this century.
On the one hand, global warming may increase sea levels, leading to not only flooding but also extra pressure on the crust triggering a runaway cyle leading to more volcanic eruptions, and yet more co2 in a vicious cycle (it has happened before about 10,000 yrs ago and around 250 my ago!).
On the other hand, there may be a huge rise in cloud cover, causing a marked rise in albedo and cooling us down again. Eventually the latter will win out so any warming will be short-lived.
Of course two things should be noted:
1. We will definatly NOT end up like venus (some environmentalists are scare mongering!!)
2. Its very likely that the very long term effect will be earth will (after the warming) end up alot colder with a severe ice age due to rain falling on basaltic rock eating up too much co2 and triggering global cooling (yet this wont occur for millenia!) | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/19/2008 12:47:08 AM | The following would actually have to deal with co2 since our scientists claim co2 affects warming now and any time in the past for which the theory suggested in the following article could prove at a future time....man is not the soul cause of co2 emmissions today as contended by many but that nature can do it all on it's own without any help from humans.
By Lauran Neergaard
updated 1:47 p.m. HT, Mon., Feb. 18, 2008
WASHINGTON - A frog the size of a bowling ball, with heavy armor and teeth, lived among dinosaurs millions of years ago — intimidating enough that scientists who unearthed its fossils dubbed the beast Beelzebufo, or Devil Toad.
But its size — 10 pounds and 16 inches long — isn't the only curiosity. Researchers discovered the creature's bones in Madagascar. Yet it seems to be a close relative of normal-sized frogs who today live half a world away in South America, challenging assumptions about ancient geography.
The discovery, led by paleontologist David Krause at New York's Stony Brook University, was published Monday by the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The largest living frog, the Goliath frog of West Africa, can reach 7 pounds. But Krause teamed with fossil frog experts from University College London to determine that Beelzebufo isn't related to other African frogs.
The family link raises a paleontology puzzle: Standard theory for how the continents drifted apart show what is now Madagascar would have been long separated by ocean from South America during Beelzebufo's time. And frogs can't survive long in salt water, Krause noted.
He contends the giant frog provides evidence for competing theories that some bridge still connected the land masses that late in time, perhaps via an Antarctica that was much warmer than today.
"...perhaps via an Antarctica that was much warmer than today."
How much warmer could nature of made it without humans giving it a helping hand? Is this at all possible? Is it possible that our solar system could actually heat up the earth to warmer temperatures then humans are being blamed for doing? And using co2 and who knows what else to accomplish the task? Science today insinuates it isn't possible and that humans HAVE to be at fault for global warming because the earth cannot create that much warmth on it's own! | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/19/2008 2:01:11 AM |
man is not the soul cause of co2 emmissions today as contended by many
Does an outright lie count as a strawman fallacy? Exactly who is claiming man to be the sole cause of CO2 emissions?
Science today insinuates it isn't possible and that humans HAVE to be at fault for global warming because the earth cannot create that much warmth on it's own!
Are you going for new records for maximum malarkey in minimum space? Here's the simple math:
Natural factor "A" accounts for "a" heat.
Natural factor "B" accounts for "b" heat.
Global average heat currently equals a+b+c. "c" correlates strongly with human factor C and not with any other factor. Not coincidentally, "C" has a known, measureable, direct influence on "c". Natural factor D isn't considered because it has no measurable influence on c, and natural factor E isn't considered because the correlation with c is much weaker than the correlation of C. Man is blamed as a significant [not sole] factor because man made factors correlate both in proportion and in actual effect.
This
How much warmer could nature of made it without humans giving it a helping hand?
and this
Is it possible that our solar system could actually heat up the earth to warmer temperatures
are just MORE strawmen.
Continental drift has a huge effect on local climate. Antarctica is currently isolated around the south pole, the coldest place it can be. It is surrounded by a ring ocean, which further isolates its weather systems and locks it into a near-constant cold cycle. When Antarctica was connected with Australia and South America, it was both further north, and not isolated by a polar ocean. It was warmer because of a) warmer latitude, b) moderation by a warm sea on its northern shore, and c) lack of isolation by cooling factors. A similar situation likely led to northern hemisphere glaciation. The effective closing of the Arctic Ocean and its isolation from warming Pacific and Atlantic currents, led to its rapid and steady cooling, thereby removing the moderating effects of warm currents on northern shores. Without that, northern winters were longer, summers were cooler, and glaciers could only grow.
Point being, ancient local climate examples are useless and deliberately misleading if you fail to account for the actual reasons for the climatic differences. Of course, you're not interested in the actual reasons, just the false conclusions you wish to lead others to. Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/19/2008 10:15:20 AM | | here da monkey wrench to the global warming business, plants breath C02, and exhale oxygen. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/19/2008 11:03:32 AM | Excellent post FrogO, I needed a good chuckle to start my day!
Lets understand one thing...science IS NOT an exact science especially when it comes to measurments.
The first thing that causes me to doubt the present findings as accurate is the fact that all the research being quoted for of just the last 1000 years is coming from a near single area of ice in the Antartic, the Law Dome. That causes me to ask why ice core samples that could have also been done in the Artic and from various glaciers that exist for core drilling HAVE NEVER BEEN REFERENCED to my knowledge. So as the rest of the lemmings I am to believe by faith that this single area of ice core drilling represents an accurate measurment of what has been going on with the entire earth for over a thousand years regarding co2 and no other ice core drillings are in conflict with the present information for that area???
And just incase you want to argue it, ice core drillings for 1000 to 10,000 years does not have to go very deep. There are 1000's of areas that ice core samples could be taken from (according to science) to validate each other in there findings of co2 levels alone.
The following recent article will also reveal a few things that the lemming crowd at large is unaware of I am guessing which is there are two main ways to measure co2 and though one is considered more reliable (air measurment) the other (ice measurment) is used because it fits the present agenda and air measurments do not give credence to it.
Hot Air Hysteria
Thursday, March 16, 2006
By Steven Milloy
Atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide are at record highs according to a new report from the UN’s World Meteorological Organization. The implication is that manmade greenhouse gas emissions and therefore, global warming, are spiraling out of control.
But the report is misleading to the extent it claims that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level – reported by the WMO to be 377 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – is 35 percent higher now than during pre-industrial times when the CO2 level allegedly was around 280 ppm.
While there’s no dispute concerning the current CO2 level, there is plenty of room to dispute the WMO’s 280 ppm-estimate for pre-industrial atmospheric CO2, according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.
Atmospheric CO2 can be measured directly by air sampling or estimated indirectly by, for example, studying air trapped in ice cores drilled from glaciers. Direct measurements of atmospheric CO2 taken by scientists during the 19th century – beginning around 1810 – ranged from about 250 ppm to 550 ppm, with an average value of 335 ppm, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
Global warming alarmists, however, prefer to estimate pre-industrial CO2 indirectly by means of ice cores, from which they derive the much lower pre-industrial revolution estimate of 280 ppm. The lower estimate makes industrial-era greenhouse gas emissions appear to be dramatically higher.
But Dr. Jaworowski says that the ice core-based CO2 estimates are unreliable.
First, ice core-based CO2 estimates vary even more than the 19th century direct measurements, generally ranging from 160 ppm to about 700 ppm with some readings as high as 2,450 ppm. But because the higher estimates are politically incorrect – that is, they don’t support the notion of manmade global warming – Dr. Jaworowski says they haven’t been mentioned in the published scientific literature since the mid-1980s when global warming fever began to spread.
The official “rationale” for ignoring the higher ice core readings is that they supposedly have been “contaminated” by the contemporary atmosphere – but it’s an excuse that actually undermines the validity of all ice cored-based measurements. Ice core data do get contaminated, according to Dr. Jaworowski, but in the opposite direction.
In order for ice core data to be considered reliable, the ice matrix must be a closed system – that is, once air is trapped in ice it should remain unchanged. But Dr. Jaworowski says that glaciers aren’t closed systems. Liquid water is present even in the coldest Antarctic ice (-73 degrees Centigrade).
“More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusion in polar ice,” Dr. Jaworowski told Senators.
The act of drilling for ice core samples further alters the composition of the trapped air. As deep ice is compressed, trapped air bubbles turn into tiny crystals. Drilling decompresses ice cores – causing cracks in the ice and decomposition of the crystals into gases which differentially escape at varying pressures and depths – leading to a net depletion of CO2 in the air trapped in the ice cores, according to Dr. Jaworowski.
“This is why the records of carbon dioxide… in deep polar ice show values lower than in the contemporary atmosphere, even for epochs when the global surface temperature was higher than now,” Dr. Jaworowski testified.
If pre-industrial CO2 levels are in fact closer to the directly measured 19th century average of 335 ppm versus the questionably estimated 280 ppm, then human activity would be correlated with a much smaller increase in atmospheric CO2 levels – which only adds to the confusion over global warming.
Mean global temperature appears to have warmed by about one degree Fahrenheit during the 20th Century. About half that warming occurred prior to 1940, while most of the century’s manmade greenhouse gas emissions occurred after 1940. The global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1970 – which led some worriers to sound alarms during the mid-1970s about a looming ice age – actually occurred simultaneously with increasing manmade greenhouse gas emissions.
There really are only two certainties in the debate over climate change. First, we really don’t have a sufficient understanding of climatic processes to predict with reasonable certainty the impact of greenhouse gas emissions on climate.
But we do know that mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions – like those required in Europe by the Kyoto Protocol and currently advocated in the U.S. by Sens. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., and Jeff Bingman, D-N.M., – will harm the economy by making energy more expensive and less available.
European nations are already choosing to forego global warming alarmism and compliance with Kyoto in favor of economic survival and growth. Let’s hope that message gets through the global warming ice core in which Sens. Domenici and Bingaman seem to be trapped. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/20/2008 12:01:40 PM |
Lets understand one thing...science IS NOT an exact science especially when it comes to measurments.
Sure. Measurement always has degrees of inaccuracy but that’s neither here nor there… Unless you’re saying that the ice core measurements are so inaccurate or so variable as to make them irrelevant. Are you claiming that? Yeah some retired atomic radiation professor who is now apparently a climatologist might, but did he even put such a “paper” in front of the US Senate?
The first thing that causes me to doubt the present findings as accurate is the fact that all the research being quoted for of just the last 1000 years is coming from a near single area of ice in the Antartic, the Law Dome. That causes me to ask why ice core samples that could have also been done in the Artic and from various glaciers that exist for core drilling HAVE NEVER BEEN REFERENCED to my knowledge.
Well… if that’s the cause of doubt, then doubt no longer!...
Yup. Ice cores have already been taken from Greenland and they match up with the Antarctica ones pretty well. Mountain top ice cores are a challenge, but they have been drilled for too. There are reasons that Greenland and Antarctica are the best for sampling. It might be a good idea for people to scope it out for themselves (it really helps in the learning process much better than taking in Fox news or relying on op-ed websites). Here’s a good start (yah… it’s Wiki-wacky-pedia, but it’ll get you in the right direction… drill down to the science and not the hype or worse yet, the junk science):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_core#Non-polar_cores
The real data doesn’t support the idea that “there’s no cross-checking of coring being done to validate the Antarctic data”… cause it ain’t so. There is cross-checking. Anyways, here’s some more stuff on ice coring that a pretty good lunch-time read (if one is into this stuff for reals…):
http://www.nicl-smo.sr.unh.edu/icwg/ICWG1998.pdf
So as the rest of the lemmings I am to believe by faith that this single area of ice core drilling represents an accurate measurment of what has been going on with the entire earth for over a thousand years regarding co2 and no other ice core drillings are in conflict with the present information for that area???
Lemmings? Faith? There’s that name-calling again. That’s nothing but slamming people when they don’t agree and really doesn’t do much for those resorting to it.
And just incase you want to argue it, ice core drillings for 1000 to 10,000 years does not have to go very deep. There are 1000's of areas that ice core samples could be taken from (according to science) to validate each other in there findings of co2 levels alone.
No one’s gonna argue that drilling doesn’t have to be too deep for a thousand years of ice record. As far as outside of Antarctica coring... they do and it helps with validating the Antarctic ones. The best undisturbed samples, Greenland’s cores validate the Antarctic cores.
The following recent article will also reveal a few things that the lemming crowd at large is unaware of I am guessing which is there are two main ways to measure co2 and though one is considered more reliable (air measurment) the other (ice measurment) is used because it fits the present agenda and air measurments do not give credence to it.
Hot Air Hysteria
Thursday, March 16, 2006
By Steven Milloy
This is not only just quoting opinion editorial, it’s quoting from FOX NEWS. Sorry, but if we are resorting to quoting opinion from FOX, I’m sure someone can claim that climate change is caused by Britney Spears.
The claim is that Jaworowski’s paper, dated March 19, 2004 was presented to a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Apparently, there’s NO record of such presentation or that such a document was ever provided but… if Steven Milloy say’s so on Foxnews.com it MUST be true. Sure, a Senate hearing gives more creds, that’s why people like to say it was even though there isn’t a record of it… Make big claims and hide it in “opinion” (…that’s why so many always follow wild ideas with “IMHO”)
Here’s a little detail on how “written for” is NOT the same as actually “testimony before the senate”…
http://www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=16
…and I just wrote a thesis specifically for the Jedi High Council… (Does that mean Yoda’s seen it?) LoL.
Funny thing is that while the paper quoted is accusing people of filtering the ice core readings to fit the science (not true, but that’s what it is saying), some are guessing ice core readings are being used because they FIT while air readings don’t (not true either)… there’s a big difference between these two reasons. This comprehensive slip-up can happen when we are too quick to judge that data matches our “answers”. Then again, they are both false notions
This is another red herring canned (and ready to be reopened in a couple of weeks no doubt…)
When you see people run from one debunked excuse to another after the first is debunked… or… wait till they think no one is looking and push out the same old junk again… that pretty much tells you it’s just trying to pull a fast one. Ask for real science, but all we get is this. Maybe or maybe not you, but chances are, some will again think that simple parroting, name-calling, personal attack or beating a straw man is intelligent “debate”… RoFl. Nope. Address the science (resorting to opinion editorials doesn’t count as a reference for science especially when all it points to is some questionable claim that a paper was presented to the US Senate…). Name-calling, put downs, and other smoke screening tells everyone “you got nothing”.
What’s next? Irrelevant Schrodinger’s cat references again?
 | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/20/2008 2:06:45 PM | Your links for other ice core samples were good links. I had an idea other cores had been taken. What I did not read about were the comparisons of these different core samples and their uniform findings showing/proving co2 levels were the same all over the earth at various ages. Got some links for that?
Your links also affirmed to me that what I already knew was true. Ice core sampling is long from being a reliable science because of the problems with contamination from drilling and the reliableness of the air bubbles themselves that take so long to form in the firn. Below is a quote from your link to consider....the word 'some' would mean it is an un-known contamination factor because not enough research has been did on possible contaminations core drilling has on ice cores.
"Core contamination
Some contamination has been detected in ice cores. The levels of lead on the outside of ice cores is much higher than on the inside.[12] In ice from the Vostok core (Antarctica), the outer portion of the cores have up to 3 and 2 orders of magnitude higher bacterial density and dissolved organic carbon than the inner portion of the cores, respectively, as a result of drilling and handling.[13"
Dating the air with respect to the ice it is trapped in is problematic. The consolidation of snow to ice necessary to trap the air takes place at depth (the 'trapping depth') once the pressure of overlying snow is great enough. Since air can freely diffuse from the overlying atmosphere throughout the upper unconsolidated layer (the 'firn'), trapped air is younger than the ice surrounding it.
Trapping depth varies with climatic conditions, so the air-ice age difference could vary between 2500 and 6000 years (Barnola et al., 1991). However, air from the overlying atmosphere may not mix uniformly throughout the firn (Battle et al., 1986) as earlier assumed, meaning estimates of the air-ice age difference could be less than imagined. "Either way, this age difference is a critical uncertainty in dating ice-core air samples." In addition, gas movement would be different for various gases; for example, larger molecules would be unable to move at a different depth than smaller molecules so the ages of gases at a certain depth may be different. Some gases also have characteristics which affect their inclusion, such as helium not being trapped because it is soluble in ice."
What they are explaining in layman's language is that this is not a perfected and very reliable science yet because of it's youth. Contributing factors 'while ice coring' and factors due to nature itself upon the ice before/during and after ice coring can mean the differance between accurate and non-accurate data.
As it stands we have a host of scientists that claim ice coring is so accurate as to claim what they know from ice core sampling is quite literally their facts at the present moment. I am going to guess (as it usually happens) in another decade the measurment data of different chemicals trapped in ice now shall be a different measurement factor in another decade because ice core drilling will be a bit older. Right now a variety of liquids are used to help the hollow drill go deep. But it is not known just yet how much these various liquids are really contaminating the ice bubbles used for chemical analysis. They know they contaminate the air bubbles near to the ice core surface. So when they crush a sample of the ice core for chemical analysis, they are logically analyzing both contaminated and non-contaminated air bubbles. Not able to seperate the contaminated from the non-contaminated they have to rely upon the measurments that come forth as possibly accurate.
And of the article I quoted....did you note the article was not against global warming or it being not true? It did not say co2 emmissions were not rising. The whole article was about the following that I quote from it...
"But the report is misleading to the extent it claims that the atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) level – reported by the WMO to be 377 parts per million (ppm) in 2004 – is 35 percent higher now than during pre-industrial times when the CO2 level allegedly was around 280 ppm."
Regarding your statement..."The claim is that Jaworowski’s paper, dated March 19, 2004 was presented to a hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation. Apparently, there’s NO record of such presentation or that such a document was ever provided..."
The author of the article Milloy was referencing a report he reflects upon that he says was put out by WMO in 2004 this committee was examining. Not a report put out by Jaworowski. Jaworowski was saying that he didn't believe the co2 levels were as low as some were claiming. That was all.
The author Milloy stated Jaworowski was called before a senate hearing covering some data about co2 levels. The author stated this scientist had been studying glaciers for over 40 years to see what impacts humans have had on global atmosphere. That would almost insinuate he is probably pro-global warming and humans are a factor in it's cause.
Apparently in your quest to slice and dice the word FOX as unreliable you missed those points eh? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/21/2008 7:41:37 PM | Hey bOrg, have you been to the ipcc.ch site? They are an off shoot of the WMO and UNEP organizations.
They have the most recent global warming impact report of November 2007 for down load on their site.
The first thing to be noted (as many seem to forget a simple truth dealing with futuristic global warming effects) while reading through it is that anything dealing with the future is absolute guess work and nothing else. People seem to forget this. The possibilities of the computer models being used to foretell the future and being correct is about as likely as you guessing correctly where I won't be in one year or ten years from now.
Take the issues that have brain washed the public at large to think, consider, believe that the Antartic ice sheet and the Greenland ice sheet are just going to up and melt away. People believe that. They believe it'll happen in their own life time! Some give it a hundred or so years.
In the IPCC report they state that at the current rate that temperatures are rising at, if they continue as their computer models show it could happen...the Greenland ice sheet will be gone in about 7000 years.
Know what they said about the Antartica ice sheet and melting? Absolutely NOTHING. They said the likelyhood of it melting is impossible as long as it continues to snow there as it has done for a long....long time. What they are gueesing at though is the possiblity of parts of that ice sheet extending into the ocean breaking off and at some future time melting away. Dates and time periods are very absent for this data.
Another thing to note with even all their data of the past to present....all of their findings are only possibilities. Especially the causes attributed to humans.
The report is actually an eye opener that shows how exploitive global warming alarmists (Gore and his lemming crowd) can be in making great guess work appear as scientific fact for the future of doom and gloom they say will happen. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/22/2008 5:41:26 PM | Actually a less of a percent. The number 1 and largest producers of CO2 are the oceans. The estimate is about 118 billion metric tons of CO2. It's a proven scientific fact. 2nd is the Biome of decomposition 3rd which is like a fraction are manufactures and cars/
Global Warming is nothing but propaganda to curtail the industries economically. It's the like the conspiracy theorists who believe that 9-11 was caused by the US Government to usher in a "New World Order". Everyday I read Alex Jones website with an open mind. Yet as of now I don't see anything new that fits their agenda. Not in the past 2 years wonder what happened and the 9-11 idea is running out of steam.
Here is one conspiracy theory you can probably support and even believe. Even Alex Jones never caught on to. The corporations are supporting organizations, like green peace and others organizations to rally with the general public and US elect officials. They rally behind the people who believe in it. Thus persuading US Officials to make laws to reduce manufacturing in the name of "Global Warming" "Save our Planet" stuff like that..
Why? Hmmm. If they reduce the number of items by standard of weight and measurements they can exceed more profit. When the consumer notices this the consumer might get nasty and lobby for justice  ... Yet we don't to anger the general public. Everything must be good and wholesome what better way, "Lets save the environment and show the public we are not greedy little monsters" 
Now since it is popular that we all must have a clean environment as possible. The corporations must advertise they are behind to reduce Global Gasses and waste.
So they make odd shapes to bottles and packages, less items to throw out, less fitting and everything nice and cozy but the real idea is making less and producing less to make more profit.
Example.
People and business owners notice the amount of yards of packing tape is reduced but the companies and retailers still keep the prices the same or raise them
The Drakes Cupcakes got smaller but the prices are still the same.
The onces in coffee grinds are reduced but the prices still reamain constant or higher..
There is a water bottle (think it's Deer Park), the container lost the side and squeezed in thus reducing the amount of water that fills the bottle.
Even Coca Cola bottles. The liquid is reduced by a fraction.
It goes on and on from small to Autombiles
It's all a gimick. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/22/2008 6:58:16 PM | | just to put this into the conversations... is the earth gaining ice in any places.... i recall the flight of aircraft that landed on an greenland glacier during world war 2... then they recovered them from under over 200 ft of ice in some years back... | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/23/2008 11:33:56 PM | In the thicker areas of the polar ice caps yes, the ice thickens every year. It is on the far outskirts of these ice caps that the snow does not stay long.
For those in the past debates and anyone new, I am pasting a new theory from the University of Florida News. The story was posted just over a year ago.
Fires in far northern forests to have cooling, not warming, effect
Filed under Research, Environment, Sciences on Thursday, November 16, 2006.
GAINESVILLE, Fla. — Droughts and longer summers tied to global warming are causing more fires in the Earth’s vast northernmost forests, a phenomenon that will spew a steadily increasing amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.
Many scientists have predicted that the result of this influx of greenhouse gas will be even more warming, followed by even more fires and so on – a vicious climactic cycle.
But a team of scientists, including two University of Florida ecologists, has arrived at just the opposite conclusion. Their research shows that while the carbon released by burning high-latitude forests of North America, Europe and Russia will no doubt have a warming effect, it will be less than an unexpected cooling effect. That will come from millions of new deciduous trees reflecting the sun’s light away from Earth with their light green leaves in the summer. In the winter, these trees lose their leaves, and white snow on the ground will reflect even more light.
A paper about the research is set to appear Friday in the journal Science. | |
|
cj4290
|
Joined: 12/20/2007
Msg: 138 | |
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:26:28 PM | There is BIG money involved with the current trend of educating people to the evils of global warming. The same devices that were once put on vehicles (by California law) in the sixties to reduce smog are now coincidentally reducing global warming. I'm fairly certain that nobody had heard of global warming 40 years ago.
My brother has a deepfreeze in his garage that has been keeping food cold for the last 40 yrs. If he were to listen to modern "scientists" ie: David Suzuki, he would be replacing it every seven years (the lifespan of modern appliances) with new ones.How much energy and resources does it take to manufacture a deepfreeze? I don't know either.
I own a 1967 mustang with 300 HP (and most car guys will tell you that old horsepower is more impressive than new) that gets 30 mpg. It would probably do a lot better but my foot gets heavy when I drive this car. It wasn't until the 70's when smog restrictions reduced both horsepower and fuel economy. How is building less efficient engines better for our enviroment? I strongly suspect that NO cars buit today will be driven in 2049. And we will still be using gasoline.
In Al Gore's movie he admits that 60% of greenhouse gases are produced by forest fires. These fires would be burning longer if humans didn't extinguish them (the vast majority of wildfires are caused by lightning strikes). Human existance on earth is only a tiny blip in history. The last 100 years that anybody has kept records of temperatures is no more than a grain of sand in a large sandbox. Any real scientist will admit that half of his theories are purely conjecture.
The biggest threat to humans (but not so much the planet) is overpopulation. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:30:29 PM | Nope, way off base. If you want good information on climate change this is the place to go:
http://realclimate.org
Its not reading for the faint of heart, but there is no B.S. in what they publish. Any more accessible sources of information are full of fossil fuel industry corporatespeak. I run an energy web site and right up front it says "restart the so called debate on global warming and you are banned". Of course, peak oil is going to get us before the climate stuff does ... | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:35:26 PM |
I'm fairly certain that nobody had heard of global warming 40 years ago.
You are correct! 40 years ago they were telling us that we were all going to freeze in another ice age so global warming was fartherst from anyones mind.
Now I have not been following this thread and frankly have no intention of reading it unless somewhere someone has posted links to show how man is causing the whole planetary system to heat up. Now I know we dont have any colonies on mars and I really cant figure out how our carbon would have any effect on the rings around saturn but if in all these pages that is covered I would love to go back and review it as I am sure I would find it very educational.
The biggest threat to humans (but not so much the planet) is overpopulation.
The biggest threat to humans is propaganda.
. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:41:40 PM |
The biggest threat to humans is propaganda.
No, it's "ignorance", largely propagated by those who have little more to say than repeat the same debunked and unsupported fallacies ad nauseum. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/24/2008 3:54:44 PM |
You are correct! 40 years ago they were telling us that we were all going to freeze in another ice age so global warming was fartherst from anyones mind.
1) The greenhouse effect is a physically relatively simple effect, and was discovered in 1824 by Fourier.
2) Yes, "they" were telling us about a coming ice age! And "they" were the mainstream media, while the scientific debate works much slower because it needs to be correct, so you will find some debate from the 70'ies, which resulted in no consensus developing about a coming ice age. In fact no journal paper outright claimed that an ice age was coming, while a few speculated that the continued use of CFC gases could trigger an ice age. What you should learn here (but I know you won't) is that the MSM is worthless when it comes to scientific issues, and that the slow scientific debate is very good at getting it right, but it's not as cool as the MSM.
Now I have not been following this thread and frankly have no intention of reading it unless somewhere someone has posted links to show how man is causing the whole planetary system to heat up. Now I know we dont have any colonies on mars and I really cant figure out how our carbon would have any effect on the rings around saturn but if in all these pages that is covered I would love to go back and review it as I am sure I would find it very educational.
This is one the popular myths that surfaces once in a while. You really should think before posting something like this, as it's obvious that even a low class scientist could have debunked global warming with a single journal paper - if this BS story would stand up to scrutiny. Yes, it's propaganda, but as always good propaganda has an element of truth, and tells people what they want to hear. You can check out the details about Mars, and find that it's not warming because of the sun, which would be the only way to explain that the whole solar system is heating, which btw it is not. In conclusion: You're been had by buying into this BS myth.
The biggest threat to humans is propaganda.
OK, so you understand this threat, but you don't realize when you're being subjected to propaganda. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/25/2008 12:45:17 PM | Hey check it out, there's a new piece of junk science from the right wing noise machine:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Basically a case study of all the myths and tricks that are being employed in the progaganda apparatus. Brand new publication, but already a classic in the way it misleads. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/26/2008 1:19:13 PM |
…Not able to seperate the contaminated from the non-contaminated they have to rely upon the measurments that come forth as possibly accurate.
Yet the readings are lower in history… It’s really hard to get accidental “un”-contamination. Unless you are saying that all the isotopes of Carbon that are used as fingerprints are somehow “removed” by the contamination of historical samples.
Contamination would be critical to Carbon measurements if carbon that really wasn’t IN the historical record was refuting the claim that historically CO2 was lower. The fact at they are finding concentrations that are lower in the history means even if there IS contamination, it’s actually making the REAL problem seem LESS than it really is.
The author of the article Milloy was referencing a report he reflects upon that he says was put out by WMO in 2004 this committee was examining. Not a report put out by Jaworowski. Jaworowski was saying that he didn't believe the co2 levels were as low as some were claiming. That was all.
That was all? That wasn’t even the point.
Milloy’s articles states…
“…according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish scientist who has spent 40 years studying glaciers in order to reconstruct the history of human impact on the global atmosphere.”
There is no way that this can be mistaken to mean ANYTHING but “Dr. Zbigniew Jarorowski gave testimony in front of a US Senate in March 2004”… that is what there has been NO PROOF OF. This is why Fox News reports are rarely the best choice for sourcing information.
Nope. No critical points were “missed”. The most critical point is that Milloy was purposely saying that Jaworowski’s paper or Jaworowski himself was before a senate hearing (in an attempt to give Jaworowski more credibility)… no record of either has been uncovered. So… nope. Milloy WAS trying to inflate Jaworowoski.
The first thing to be noted (as many seem to forget a simple truth dealing with futuristic global warming effects) while reading through it is that anything dealing with the future is absolute guess work and nothing else. People seem to forget this. The possibilities of the computer models being used to foretell the future and being correct is about as likely as you guessing correctly where I won't be in one year or ten years from now.
This is just another attempt to equate developed models with pure random guessing. They are worlds apart. Other posters have debunked this before. It goes something like: There’s no guarantee that some profiling model will identify any given credit card fraud, but they do work in homing in on those schemes. You could just pick a credit card number out of a hat too, but chances of success are way less that way. They are NOT the same thing.
Nope. Not fooling anyone.
Take the issues that have brain washed the public at large…
RoFl. If anyone believes brain-washing works, you’d think it would be those that continue to prop up straw men and beat them on a regular basis. We leave it up to everyone to either read the real science or pretend that noise is the same thing as real information.
Hey check it out, there's a new piece of junk science from the right wing noise machine:
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
Basically a case study of all the myths and tricks that are being employed in the progaganda apparatus. Brand new publication, but already a classic in the way it misleads.
Right on! This National .com Post “opinion” is stereotypical of the propaganda that people take in as “real” science. Good find Max. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/26/2008 10:55:11 PM | | this is not what it appears to be.. we are conditioned to believe this is a legitimate problem so the 'powers that be' can usher in additional systems of control and revenue generation(ie. co2 and Carbon Tax). The changes the earth is experiencing are natural. hundreds and even thousands of scientists now have come together to challenge the 'official' position on Global Warming. | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/26/2008 11:18:41 PM | You got me good Borg....here I am just as delusional as all the rest in the following.....guess it must not of happened......
Some are Boojums » Blog Archive » The Golden Horseshoe Award ...Enter Zbigniew Jaworowski, who claims that the consensus regarding increased CO2 ... that Jaworowski gave testimony before the US Senate on March 19, 2004, ...
www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=7 - 178k - Cached - Similar pages
Some are Boojums » Blog Archive » Milloy parrots Jaworowski: dog ...Statement written for the Hearing before the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, ... March 19, 2004. Statement of Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski ...
www.someareboojums.org/blog/?p=48 - 16k - Cached - Similar pages
More results from www.someareboojums.org »
FOXNews.com - Hot Air Hysteria - Blog | Blogs | Popular Blogs ...Thursday, March 16, 2006. By Steven Milloy ... according to March 2004 testimony before the U.S. Senate by Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, a senior Polish ...
www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,188176,00.html - 47k - Cached - Similar pages
New on the SEPP webFred Singer's US Senate Testimony (followed by a news release) attacking the ... Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski ignited a firestorm of letters when he published on ...
www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/newsepp.html - 81k - Cached - Similar pages
WordParadigm: May 2007A recent press release from "The U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and ... physicist Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, chairman of the Central Laboratory for the ...
wordparadigm.blogspot.com/2007_05_01_archive.html - 36k - Cached - Similar pages
FAEC - Climate Change and Other Frauds... written for the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation , March 2004, by Prof. Zbigniew Jaworowski, Chairman, Scientific Council of ...
www.mitosyfraudes.org/Warming.html - 108k - Cached - Similar pages
Deltoid » Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theoriesNow, I enjoy this stuff as much as the next guy, but the question before us is whether Jaworowski deserves to be taken seriously. ...
timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3/ - 97k - Cached - Similar pages
[PDF] Kill Malarial Mosquitoes NOW!File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
Zbigniew Jaworowski. Former Chairman, UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic ..... testimony before U.S. Senate Subcommittee on East Asian and Pacific ...
www.ddponline.org/declaration.pdf - Similar pages
Global Warming - The other side of the argument.? - Yahoo! AnswersZbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central .... (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, ...
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070527125654AAPLypK - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
THE GREAT GLOBAL WARMING HOAXAccording to Zbigniew Jaworowski, writing in the Winter 2003-2004 edition ... The United States Senate unanimously rejected the Kyoto Protocol in July 1997. ...
www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1113608/posts - 45k - Cached - Similar pages
Below was my statement of people relying on predictions not for a week or a year in the future but for decades to centuries.....
"The first thing to be noted (as many seem to forget a simple truth dealing with futuristic global warming effects) while reading through it is that anything dealing with the future is absolute guess work and nothing else. People seem to forget this. The possibilities of the computer models being used to foretell the future and being correct is about as likely as you guessing correctly where I won't be in one year or ten years from now."
And instead of agreeing that humans making future forecasts for decades to centuries into the future is not a reliable thing to do or support.....your response is.....
"This is just another attempt to equate developed models with pure random guessing. They are worlds apart. Other posters have debunked this before. It goes something like: There’s no guarantee that some profiling model will identify any given credit card fraud, but they do work in homing in on those schemes. You could just pick a credit card number out of a hat too, but chances of success are way less that way. They are NOT the same thing.
Nope. Not fooling anyone."
Read what you wrote Borg!! We both believe global warming is happening but you go one step forward believing the way of the Gore followers that the future is doomed and unchangeable because the scientists of today are predicting it that way.
I live here in Alaska Borg. In an hour I can go and see glaciers that have been receeding for a long time up here. That told me and many other Alaskans up here years ago before Gore ever got on a soap box and started screaming his dire warnings for the future that the earth was warming up and in our life time cities would be flooded and untolds amount of plant life was going to disapear and to many animal species would go extinct to even list. Lakes, rivers, streams that have always been would dry up and new ones appear.
I will state again.....I KNOW global warming is happening. But I refuse to be a part of a Gore following thats trying to prove it's all doom and gloom unless we change our ways now!!! There is a better way to communicate then with scare tactics that have actually caused people to think the world will be mostly flooded in our life time due to the prophetic revalations of our scientific community.  | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/27/2008 5:55:10 PM |
You got me good Borg....here I am just as delusional as all the rest in the following.....guess it must not of happened......
Fox News Lol? Fred Singer? Lmao. Right… never mind the fact that the first excuse was to say that Milloy wasn’t even claiming that. After that was proven to be false (in the last B0rgian post), it’s now back to trying to say that it DID happen. LoL. Links that just lead eventually lead back to the same old blog sites… right, Fox is confirmed by Singer is confirmed by Fox…
Gotcha? Nope. Irrelevant. I cannot take credit for anything but exposing the lies and half-truths. Any who cling onto junk science and popular myths are totally responsible for their own image (whether that’s “delusional” is for all readers to decide on their own). I’m sure we can find many more popular bloggists that believe Elvis is still alive too. If someone can list 10 of them, it must be true. Then again, someone only have to list one source for Jaworowski’s Senate Hearing appearance to be true… that would be the Senate record. THAT is relevant.
Not that it by itself makes the contents of his paper true either. Whether he is a past authority on radioactivity is irrelevant. Whether or not his paper on ice core sampling is considered to be valid by real climatologists is. Don’t let anything stop you from presenting such a citation (aside from the probability that NONE exist).
And instead of agreeing that humans making future forecasts for decades to centuries into the future is not a reliable thing to do or support.....
RoFl. Let’s see. Lunar eclipses have been predicted using centuries old models and they work. Positions of planets are pretty much estimated using the same old Newtonian and Brahe-Kepler astrophysics. Just like it was said before, some people like to promote the idea that scientific models are the same as tarot cards based only on the idea that both “predict” things. Some will then wrongly relate that “understanding scientific models are not perfect” makes such a person a believer in “all things imperfect (no matter HOW imperfect)”. An educated estimation is as random as rolling dice… right. Some will continue to pretend not to see the difference. Most will see that there is a big difference.
…Read what you wrote Borg!! We both believe global warming is happening but you go one step forward believing the way of the Gore followers that the future is doomed and unchangeable because the scientists of today are predicting it that way…
…But I refuse to be a part of a Gore following thats trying to prove it's all doom and gloom unless we change our ways now!!! There is a better way to communicate then with scare tactics that have actually caused people to think the world will be mostly flooded in our life time due to the prophetic revalations of our scientific community.
This is just beating yet another straw man. It is a feeble attempt to misrepresent the position of an opponent. In this case the purposely incorrect implications are:
Opponent is a supporter of extreme alarmist views and tactics.
Opponent is asking you to join up to some alarmist club.
Opponent has repeatedly accused or assumed that you do not believe there is climate change.
Opponent believes that any and all scientific predictions are absolutely accurate and unchangeable.
Opponent is blinded by conviction approaching fundamentalist proportions.
Opponent believes that most livable land areas will be flooded within “our lifetimes” due to climate change.
As in any straw man argument, the implied positions are wrong, completely invented or they are outrageously blown out of proportion. These wild opinions are then rejected and it is hoped that it will cause others to mistake the opponent as being way off base. Smoke and mirrors: that’s all it is.
Of course, the problem is that it’s really easy for readers to look and see what your opponent actually wrote (and why). Come to think of it, who is repeatedly bringing up “Al Gore?” (I’ve asked people to research the science). Who is claiming that Jaworowski actually appeared before a Senate committee in March of 2004 just because some popular blogs and editorials said so? (I’ve only noted that there hasn’t been any proof from the Senate records). Even then, it was already explained why the possible contamination isn’t really throwing out results.
There hasn’t been any scientific support for deniers. There are just a lot of opinion editorials. This is what we suspected, and this has now been proven… again.
ROfl… Try answering this question with a simple Yes or No… Will you stop kicking your dog? Yes or No? (don’t we love straw man tactics). Better yet, try and get some real scientific support for claims denying the current understanding of CO2 and how it applies to climate change or admit that there is no REAL evidence from deniers.
Global Warming - The other side of the argument.? - Yahoo! AnswersZbigniew Jaworowski, chair of the Scientific Council at the Central .... (Testimony before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, ...
answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070527125654AAPLypK - 83k - Cached - Similar pages
This bit of shenanigans pretty much shows how someone can coyly fool others. You’d think this reference to Jaworowski and the “U.S. Senate” is connected in the quotation (that the Jarorowski gave testimony). It’s coy because it gives an out of “I wasn’t trying to make it look connected it at all”… yeah right. Going to the actual link (which is full of the usual denier “heroes”) shows that the “U.S. Senate” part is way further down the page, and is actually connected to a Dave Deming testimony, a US Geologist on a completely unrelated hearing on December 6, 2006. What? Is Jaworowski and Deming the same person now? Is December 2006 the same as March 2004 ? Nuff said.
Tricks like this in itself, pretty much destroys any believability someone MIGHT have had. Read the real science people. Sticking to popular blogs get you this kind of coy half-truth.
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/27/2008 6:56:12 PM | You wanted some decent reading material Borg, here you go. I believe these are more Fox-related links that help to support the fabrication that Jaworowski among many other scientists weren't called before the senate hearings of the EPW like you say. Ummm...you might note that the blogger's email Marc Morano is @epw.senate.gov which would insinuate he works there in the public relations office as he has over 245 posts at the EPW site.
Check out the "Minority 4" link on the page link below. I am guessing your gonna resort to calling this site another 'straw man' but I'll wait for your response as these links deal with co2-global warming and then some.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm
5 records returned for "Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski"
(5 total records searched)
MAJORITY (1)
[Contact: Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.GOV -- Matthew Dempsey - Matthew_Dempsey@EPW.Senate.gov - U.S. Senate Enviro...
Page
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MINORITY (4)
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:47 AM ET U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists D...
Blog from Thursday, December 20, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Against 'Futile' Climate Control Efforts
Posted By Marc Morano - Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 1:05 PM ET Over 100 Prominent Scientists Warn UN Agains...
Blog from Thursday, December 13, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Reverse Belief in Man-made Global Warming - Now Skeptics
Posted by Marc Morano – Marc_Morano@EPW.Senate.Gov - 9:14 PM ET Climate Momentum Shifting: Prominent Scientists Rev...
Blog from Tuesday, May 15, 2007
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IN CASE YOU MISSED IT...Open Kyoto to debate, Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (The Financial Post)
Click Here for the Link: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d60...
Fact of the Day from Thursday, April 6, 2006
| |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/27/2008 7:50:37 PM | Okay, here's a new perspective on the matter(I hope. I didn't want to read 6 pages of flaming, counter-flaming, etc etc).
Okay, lets consider two possibilities, that things are going to get worse, very quickly, very painfully. And the other possibility that we are wrong. Then, we consider two approaches, that we act now, or that we don't act. Now, if there is Climate Change, and we do something, it will be very expensive, but disaster will be averted. If there is Climate Change, and we don't do anything, then there will be disaster.
If there is not climate change, and we do something, it will be expensive, but no disaster. Not neccesarily good, but still better than disaster. On the other hand, if there is no climate change, and we don't do anything, then no expense, no disaster. Look at each of those four results. Even if we act, disaster is averted. Money is spent, perhaps that may be bad for some, but the end result is that there is no disaster. So its not a matter of if there is climate change or not, but do we DO something about it? Basic game theory says we should since acting will offer us, as a species, the best chance of survival. What do you guys think? | |
|
| Hmm... global warming by co2?
Posted: 2/27/2008 9:58:39 PM | Zeroth, good points, and it's a pretty traditional analysis. You can find a nerd explaining it under:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=bDsIFspVzfI | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 13
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 |
|
Home
login 
