RE: Global warming?? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Global warming?? (6/8/2007 7:59:53 PM)

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

This is a link to the 2007 report on Global Surface Temperature Annomalies produced by the National Climatic Data Center division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Real Data. Draw your own conclusions.




Joseff -> RE: Global warming?? (6/8/2007 8:09:44 PM)

Global warming is a hoax. I've seen what passes for the science behind it, and I am not convinced.
Joseff



DomKen -> RE: Global warming?? (6/8/2007 9:59:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseff

Global warming is a hoax. I've seen what passes for the science behind it, and I am not convinced.
Joseff

A hoax and you've seen the data. How come the folks who have actually spent their lives learning how the Earth's climate works disagree?

If it is completely wrong then maybe you can answer these questions:

1) What explains the increase of atmospheric CO2 levels that have happened in the last 200 years? If you deny that CO2 levels have increased by more than 100ppm in the last 200 years can you explain the multiple sources of data that indicate such a change has occured and why these sources are all in essential agreement on the details of the change?

2) Is the current air mix capable of retaining more thermal energy than the air mix of 200 years ago? If yes, is the change in CO2 concentration the primary factor in this change?



HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Global warming?? (6/8/2007 10:47:01 PM)

Overheard in Mesopotamia around 2400 BC:
"Hey Noah, don't you know global flooding is just a myth? There's no way it could rain for 40 whole days! Leave that boat alone and let's go watch the Camel races."



farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 5:01:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Joseff

Global warming is a hoax. I've seen what passes for the science behind it, and I am not convinced.
Joseff


Please provide this data which disproves the hypothesis.




farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 5:05:23 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Dtesmoac

quote:

ORIGINAL: farglebargle

You don't have the data to prove that your hypothesis is correct. If you *do* have the data, I wanna see it.But you don't. - you are correct I don't.




however I also do not have data to prove planes fly, some bacteria cause illness and asbestos causes cancer, on balance of evidence from research, epidemiological studies, and current science.... they do. Rome BC Pleny the younger - don't buy slves from asbestos mines they die young, Leonardo Da Vinci - drawings of flight, "middle ages bad air causes disease" Wright Brothers, 1970s OSHA, Flemming and antibiotics, at what point will you decide ..................... others have the best available evidence and better knowledge to make a consensus view - what else do the top scientists from the main countries on the planet earth agree about ............... farglebargle, you may be bright but that bright................. nope. see below

That's the whole problem with this. It's become a political pissing match, ( which actually just serves to distract from the High Crimes ) and NEITHER SIDE has a fucking clue. - it was political when Bush and others decided not to act for political belief reasons. Now it has gone beyond politics it has entered main stream business thinking. Invest and act now or experience greater losses later. Even the oil industries longterm profit forcasts assume climate change and human induced climate change are the most logical business investment position to take

So, learn some Climatology, and study the extant literature, and then tell me what you've learned.- that you have been selective on your reading, that people like Al Gore are also selective, that all the issues like "Mars warming up" have been included in the most recent IPCC assessments, that the IPCC assessments are very conservative in approach, that the Stern Report argued the economics of risk not the politics of belief over pseudo science, that detractors like Lumberg and Bush are having to change their view .........

Here's a lead for you to follow up on. "How is the entire temperature profile of the earth measured, from below sea level, to the top of the atmosphere, and what is the resolution of that measurement, if any?" like any sample you do not measure constantly, everything, you take samples, produce a hypothesis, challenge it and peer review your conclusions. And science unlike religeon does not say it is 100% correct it says this is the best available conclusion on the available data.

"The Science of Climate Change
A joint statement issued by the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy, Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy, Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Turkish Academy of Sciences, and Royal Society (UK).
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science. We recognize the IPCC as the world's most reliable source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.

Check out the web pages of any of the world leading scientific acadamies (the top one in each country)



That's COMMENTARY, NOT DATA.

Do your own thinking, don't just regurgitate what other people TELL YOU is correct.




farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 5:06:37 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: HaveRopeWillBind

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/anomalies/anomalies.html

This is a link to the 2007 report on Global Surface Temperature Annomalies produced by the National Climatic Data Center division of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Real Data. Draw your own conclusions.




"NCDC's long-term mean temperatures for the Earth were calculated by processing data from thousands of world-wide observation sites on land and sea for the entire period of record of the data. Many parts of the globe are inaccessible and therefore have no data"



NoirUMC -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 5:10:21 AM)

I had people with PhDs in this tell me that it was bullsh**. I've also had them tell me it was true. I've had them tell me that Mt. St. Helens expelled more greenhouse gases when it exploded than humans have in their entire history.

Fact: Earth used to be a lot hotter than it is now.
Fact: Earth *also* used to be a lot colder than it is now.
Fact: Climates change.
Fact: These changes have been taking place since long before our time.
Opinion: We're pretty arrogant to think we're going to be able to change the way the Earth works with our crappy technology.
Opinion: On the other hand, anything that makes my gasoline cheaper and/or replaces it... I'm all for that with prices over 3 bucks a gallon.

P.S. Anyone asking me for proof will get laughed at. Lern2google.



DomKen -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 11:22:16 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirUMC

I had people with PhDs in this tell me that it was bullsh**. I've also had them tell me it was true. I've had them tell me that Mt. St. Helens expelled more greenhouse gases when it exploded than humans have in their entire history.

Fact: Earth used to be a lot hotter than it is now.
Fact: Earth *also* used to be a lot colder than it is now.
Fact: Climates change.
Fact: These changes have been taking place since long before our time.
Opinion: We're pretty arrogant to think we're going to be able to change the way the Earth works with our crappy technology.
Opinion: On the other hand, anything that makes my gasoline cheaper and/or replaces it... I'm all for that with prices over 3 bucks a gallon.

P.S. Anyone asking me for proof will get laughed at. Lern2google.



The source of the Mt. St. Helens claim appears to have been Rush Limbaugh. I've done quite a bit of research into finding any prior statements on this and haven't been able to. The claim is patently false and can easily be debunked by simple research.
http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp6/question1375.html

As to the Earth was once hotter and colder stuff. How much hotter do you think it can get and still have humans living on it?

Virtually all of our food crops are temperate climate plants. The temperate climate zone presently encompasses most of the land on the planet. As the climate zones shift towards the poles less land will be available to grow basic food crops. We're already losing winter wheat in much of the midwest and it isn't going to take much more of a temperature shift before we start losing the rest of the cereal grains.



TheHeretic -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 11:57:32 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah
My question to Theheretic is: how is it that conserving and maximizing the utility of limited resources, and trying to address the increased proportion of Carbon Dioxide in the air will result in the entire third world getting AIDS and starving to death?



        I was thinking to take this as an opportunity to let one of my crazy theories come out for a run, but the simple truth is that I'm not in the right frame of mind to do it on the grand scale.  Here is the Cliff Notes version.

      The campaign against global warming has been co-opted by the radical left.  The tree-huggers have become the new flock of "useful idiots" for those who seek to bring on the Marxist Revolution, tools for the wanna-be totalitarians. 

      Conservation of resources, reducing the amount of pollution and additives we put into the air, earth and water, these are good ideas.  I'm in.  Using what is probably a perfectly normal and natural event on this very old planet as an excuse for imposing mandates on individual behaviors?  I have issues with that.

      Look at the propaganda campaign.  "The debate is over???"  I imagine you've read Orwell and Huxley.  This is about control (but here, have an anxiety pill).

     Letting UN committees start issuing dictates on the US economy?  I don't think so.  I've seen in the news too many times that, thanks to President Bush, the whole world hates our guts, and I don't know that the story of killing the goose that laid the golden eggs is part of their cultural heritage.  Our economy feeds the world.

    The rational, reasonable, ideas you put forth in your question are not the "solutions" that are being pushed for.  I see an entirely different aganda.



philosophy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 12:09:17 PM)

"Our economy feeds the world."

....do you have any facts to back that assertion up? 




TheHeretic -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 12:30:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: philosophy

"Our economy feeds the world."

....do you have any facts to back that assertion up? 





     Cliff Notes here, Phil.  Think metaphorically.  There are lots of ways to put food on people's tables.  Look up the tortilla riots in Mexico for a start.



popeye1250 -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 12:31:06 PM)

People who "want" to believe in global warming will do so no matter how much scientific evidence exists to the contrary.
Even when it is proven beyond any doubt that it doesn't exist they'll still "believe" because they have that "Anal-Retentive" type of personality.



Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 12:42:25 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

Look up the tortilla riots in Mexico for a start.



I did, TheHeretic.

With NAFTA the US agribusiness sold Mexico hybrids developed to grow in the United States, as a condition for selling them in the United States, which were not hardy enough to survive in Mexico's climate. 

So the crop margins plummetted, erosion skyrocketted, Mexican farmers could not grow enough food to even survive, much less sell to buy seeds for the next year, or food to feed themselves.

The US stepped in and provided them with corn products.  The locals rioted since they could not afford to purchase corn any more.

It sounds as if your point was that we in the United States feed Mexican farmer.  This is true.  On the other hand, the reason we feed the Mexican farmer is because our economic policies with Mexico trashed their agriculture and they were forced to buy food from us.

I made the point in another thread that these things do not happen in a vacuum.  There is a system in place which functions on it's own parameters, and comes to some sort of equilibrium.  Monkey with that system, the system responds in order to find the new equilibrium.

This new equilibrium may or may not be better for the individual or country than the old one.

Sinergy




philosophy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 12:43:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

People who "want" to believe in global warming will do so no matter how much scientific evidence exists to the contrary.
Even when it is proven beyond any doubt that it doesn't exist they'll still "believe" because they have that "Anal-Retentive" type of personality.



...sorry Popeye, but the only debate between those who put facts over opinion is over whether or not there is a human influence on global warming. The idea that it is happening is simply not a supposition or an opinion....it is simply reporting the observable facts.
It does seem, however, that those who wish to disbelieve global warming will do so no matter how much scientific research you put in front of them, as they prefer to believe the words of pundits with agendas.
If global warming has a manmade component then only global action will do anything about it. There exist, particulary in the states, a body of opinion that is ideologically opposed to acting globally. These people are the antiscientific ones Popeye, because they ignore the scientific opinion in favour of an ideological one.
As for anal-retentiveness......i'm sure that soon there'll be a visine for that [:D]



domiguy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 1:09:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirUMC

I had people with PhDs in this tell me that it was bullsh**. I've also had them tell me it was true. I've had them tell me that Mt. St. Helens expelled more greenhouse gases when it exploded than humans have in their entire history.

.
Opinion: We're pretty arrogant to think we're going to be able to change the way the Earth works with our crappy technology.

P.S. Anyone asking me for proof will get laughed at. Lern2google.



I believe when I read that the "majority" of respected scientists feel that "our" addition to the climate "equation" has made an impact.

We are an ignorant lot.  We view that we could never have an effect on anything so vast as the Earth's climate.

We once thought that the oceans, lakes and our rivers were an infinite source that we could use as our toilet and dumping ground and never have to worry about any future ramifications......Wrong!

We once thought that the earth itself that if we just bury our chemicals and garbage deep enough that would be the answer........Wrong!

So now some people suggestthat what possible harm could come from dumping all of the harmful gasses that we emit into our atmosphere....It can never have any possible ramifications....Yes, it will pollute the air....Why would there not be other consequences as well?

The reality is what can really be done about "global warming?"...How do you go about telling emerging nations to cut back on their burning of coal and other fossil fuels?

I just think the majority of folks hate the messenger (Gore) so much, that they cannot even begin to comprehend that the message holds truth as well as backed up by some fairly strong science.....But to think that "we" cannot have an affect just makes me think of how much has already been lost from this sort of ideaology.



farglebargle -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 1:44:54 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: NoirUMC

I had people with PhDs in this tell me that it was bullsh**. I've also had them tell me it was true. I've had them tell me that Mt. St. Helens expelled more greenhouse gases when it exploded than humans have in their entire history.


If they don't present the Data which supports their hypothesis, you should just discount their hypothesis.

Don't they even TRY to teach the Scientific Method in school anymore?



Griswold -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 3:30:58 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: onmykneesforhim

Hi,
Im in Baltimore, near the harbour. I have actaully seen the effects of global warming yesturday and unit this incident, I had never thought much about it.is very scarey. There ws a stentch in the air from so many dead fish. The patrols were scooping them out by the bucket fulls. One of my friends had tryed to explain the one degree rise that made the algea grow at an excelerated rate.
Anyway, I had never really thought *it* was a real threat, until I saw for my self.
Its really something that cant be stopped, is it?
omk


Ya know...you could be forgiven for the latitude as to your wordsmithing.

(I actually wouldn't give you that much)....but...you're suggesting that a sea change (forgive) has taken place...and that there's a conundrum as to Baltimore harbor.

There's a lot of conundrums as to all sea ports, all places where fish and sea life take safe harbor...things have been taking shape since the 70's...no one knew what they meant...could it be pollution?  Could it be sunspots?

Once only hearty Republicans (forgive me...I was once one) could debate this. 

This could very well be an anomoly (sp?)...it could also be the beginning of the end.

Thankfully, "our end" is 50 years off, ergo....my responsability (as to previous generations) is...basically...never.

But our time has come.  We're the first generation that truly has to pay the price, today....of our own actions...indeed...those that preceded us.

We have to pay the price not only of those that preceded us...but 3 generations before.

Everyone before us was able to say...."let the next group (pay)"....

Today we all have to pay.

Today.

(And tomorrow).



TheHeretic -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 3:39:05 PM)

     Way to go find the spin, Sinergy.  I don't suppose you'd care to speculate on just how many people overseas put food on their tables producing the mountains of crappy consumer goods you make such a nice living pulling off the boats would you?

     I seem to recall seeing the number $750 billion for our trade deficit last year.  Does putting that on top of our foreign aid numbers not fit the template?



Sinergy -> RE: Global warming?? (6/9/2007 3:45:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic

    Way to go find the spin, Sinergy.  I don't suppose you'd care to speculate on just how many people overseas put food on their tables producing the mountains of crappy consumer goods you make such a nice living pulling off the boats would you?

    I seem to recall seeing the number $750 billion for our trade deficit last year.  Does putting that on top of our foreign aid numbers not fit the template?


You posted about tortilla riots in Mexico as an argument to somebody else's post on a thread on global warming.
I know something about agricultural and commerce issues in Mexico post NAFTA.  So I responded with my post.  

I do know a general answer to the question you asked about my job, but not sure how that relates to global warming.  Please clarify your question.

Sinergy




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875