Lucky Shot

http://www.mos.org/cst-archive/article/80/9.html

The ice caps on Mars are melting. If "Global Warming" is happening on earth and Mars both, but humans only exist on Earth, then maybe Global Warming is due to a natural phenomenon. Perhaps the sun is more active than it has been in the past.

According to http://www.physorg.com/news78498828.html

So is it possible that an increase in solar activity, the source of the earth's heat and energy, is kicking out more energy heating up both the Earth and Mars? If that's the case, I think we would find that the current Global Warming is cyclical, and maybe that humans are not the reason for a 1-2 degree temperature fluctuation. There is too much contradictory evidence to say that humans are the main reason for global warming and that this is anything but cyclical. I appreciate your efforts though in making the world cleaner. I think you may find your "Big Rock" here though... http://www.physorg.com/news73311360.html

Lucky Shot

dfg872

Read Usoskin's article before thinking you've said anything of consequence. He is primarily discussing magnetic activity on the sun. Sunspots, etc. There isn't a correlation between thermal forcing due to solar activity. But it's become aparent to me through your writings that you have enough of a limited understanding that it isn't worth debating you anymore. Citing some articles that you think prove your point is hardly enough to change what the large majority of scientists think. Take some science classes, turn off fox news and start thinking for yourself.

__________________
|TG-Irr| Dfg872

xTYBALTx

Science isn't a democracy. Numbers do not strengthen a point.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Lucky Shot

Sunspots have an impact on the Earth's weather DFG. Sunspots tend to happen at Solar Maximum and an increase of Solar Flares would indicate that the sun is giving off more radiation than it has in the past.

http://www.arrlmiss.org/press_release.html

So finding an article that says that we are seeing MORE sunspots indicates that the Sun is kicking out more energy. There is evidence that the sun is brighter than it has been in the past.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html
http://www.washtimes.com/world/20040...5714-6334r.htm

There are plenty of people like yourself that are willing to take the blame for any delta in temperature. For what it's worth, I appreciate your condescension. I don't watch Fox News and didn't cite them but know that the large majority of scientists need to eat and so they will push for whatever fear will drive in the funding at times. Independant thinking requires that you disagree with the majority opinion at times.

Lucky Shot

eGoatBoy

I recently saw "An Inconvenient Truth". It was very interesting, and if the data that Al Gore (...just take it easy card-carrying GOP members...) presented wasn't grossly exagerated then there might be a problem...

A few take-away's from the film:

The opponents of policy change have positioned global warming as a 'theory', not a 'fact'. Similiar to how opponents of evolution try to position it as 'theory', versus the fact that it is (my editorial here...Gore never mentions evolution). This strategy seems to have worked as public opinion is divided on the issue, contrasted against scientific opinion which is strongly united.

Average global temperatures are strongly, and positively, correlated to carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere. The current levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are much higher than any measureable peak from recorded history. Recorded history in this case is over a few hundred thousand years, as revealed through cored ice samples from Antartica.

Rent the DVD. Watch it. It's not a bad way to spend 90 minutes.

Cheers,

__________________

xTYBALTx

I'm opposed to policy changes regarding global warming, and have never once attacked the theory of global warming as 'a theory and not a fact.' To do so would be nonsensical.

As for those carbon dioxide concentrations?



How scary!!

Just a side note - you should always provide information for as far back as information is available. So, if you are seeing only 400,000 years of CO2 variation, but have on hand 450,000,000 years worth of information, you're probably being tricked.

__________________
A policy of freedom for the individual is the only truly progressive policy. -F.A. Hayek

Boot

I haven't seen Gore's movie. I'd be interested to see it if it handled the gaping "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" question. But a dramatization of a logical fallacy with high end graphics to move the masses towards fear is either A) deception based on manipulation; or B) deception based on stupidity.

Correllation does not prove causation. Focus on the right things, or you'll solve yourself right into a problem.

__________________
Boot.

In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU.

Lucky Shot

Al Gore Talks a good story, but he doesn't live the carbon nuetral lifestyle that he wants every one else to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPDWDl6_KbY

Lucky Shot

thebleakaffinity

I like how ratings and comments have been disabled for that video.

LALALALALA I'M NOT LISTENING

eGoatBoy

[RANT]

Sorry...please spell it out for me (I'm not a big fan of forum-debates ). I'm not sure if you are taking a position that global warming is, or is not, occurring?


Again...please spell it out. I think you are being sarcastic there, but I'm not sure. That graphic is very interesting BTW, and adds needed context but I don't think it's relevant to the debate because 100's of millions of years is a time scale that takes us beyond human concerns. I think it's fair to say that the earth's atmosphere has dramatically changed it's composition in this time scale, but there were no humans around to be bothered by it back then.(environmentalists or otherwise ).


I agree that the most data that can be provided, should be. However I don't agree about the likely motive of deception. Context is relevant. This debate is, arguably, about what global warming means to humans. I may be a bit selfish here, but I'd like to understand what it means to me, the people around me, and the generations of people to come. Given this self-serving motive, the timescale of 100s of thousands of years seems appropriate. Granted I don't know anybody that old, but that's the environment we "grew" up in...meaning, humans as a species, and our near ancestors (...I supopse a thread on evolution will need to be started soon ).


You've raised a great point I think. I don't recall him addressing it in a fashion other than: carbon dioxide in the atmosphere helps drive the green-house effect...the green-house effect helps drive global temperatures.


I think videos like that are not helpful. It's a bitch trying to dig up the truth on some of these issues. That video paints Al Gore as insincere. So should we then infer that his message is worthless? Ad hominem. Nevermind the practical reality of getting his message out (probably earning a living doing so as well...I'm not pretending he is a saint here), but that video looks at one side of the "carbon neutral" equation. It seems to me to be a political message, with little interest in seeking the truth.


Is humanity altering the global climate through green-house gas emissions?
-- If yes, then is it that bad for humanity?
---- If yes, then what should we do about it?
If no, then game on.

It gets real political at the "what should we do about it" part.

My personal position is that the topic demands attention and investigation. I'm not about to run out tomorrow and trade in my gas-guzzler for a hybrid, but the truth is out there, and the truth is generally worth knowing.

The truth is going to be in the science, not the media or the politicians.

[/RANT]

__________________

Lucky Shot

Appreciate your thoughts. I feel that some go from catastrophic fear to catastrophic fear exploiting peoples feelings in order to drive their wallets. I feel that some are trying to take advantage of a normal cycle within the weather patterns in order to drive research funds, sell books, sell out speaking tours, create an additional way to tax me. Especially when the topic centers around Al Gore's movie which I feel is also one sided. The guy asks others to live Carbon Nuetral, but when this guy jets all over the country, owns polluting mines and was once senator from one of the worst polluting states in the country (Tennessee), then I feel there is a right to question his motives.

In regards to what we should do about the world being 1 degree warmer than it was 100 years ago, then we should allow nature to self correct. History is filled with examples of how humans developed a solution to a problem that created even worse issues than there was previously. Remember the predictions from the beginning of the year of more intense storms were quelled by the unexpected level of dust in the atmosphere from Africa. No one predicted that, because it was beyond human and computer prediction that would happen. For all the people who think that the world is in this never ending spiral of more CO2 and less glaciers, remember that as glaciers disappear, vegetation replaces it turning CO2 into Oxygen. Lastly, the biggest contributor to CO2 is the Cow as reported by the Independent. http://news.independent.co.uk/enviro...cle2062484.ece If you truly want to do your part, plant a couple trees in your front yard and then have a barbecue underneath them. There are different ways to solve the problem without requiring me to pay more for my goods or taxes.

Lucky Shot

Steeler

I have never understood this argument, as the most powerful entites arguing AGAINST the existence of global warming, namely oil companies, manufacturers, and others latched into the fossil fuel economy, have an even greater financial self-interest in the debate. If these two competing self-interests effcetively cancel each other out in terms of credibility, can't we then judge on the evidence?

__________________

Lucky Shot

Sure! It just seems that any evidence I present gets brushed under the carpet, but roll the man made CO2 at me again.

Lucky Shot

AMosely

Meanwhile another 41 square-miles of ice shelf (larger than Manhattan) breaks off the north pole ice shelf in Canada. This has immediate dangers to oil and gas drilling in the northern Atlantic. This is largest of several major ice shelf collapses in the last several decades.

"It's hard to tie one event to climate change, but when you look at the longer-term trend, the bigger picture, we've lost a lot of ice shelves on northern Ellesmere in the past century and this is that continuing," he said. "And this is the biggest one in the last 25 years."

http://today.reuters.com/news/articl..._scienceNews-3

You may also want to read this paper on the Ellesmere Island Ice Shelf, which attempts to tie together historical observation with scientific analysis of climate change, ice shelf collapse and habitat change in the Canadian arctic.
http://www.cen.ulaval.ca/warwickvinc...Ffiles/149.pdf

Steeler

Well, most of the evidence that you have put forward simply suggests that the changes (1 degree in 100 years) are minimal and not significant. We also doubt each others' sources on this topic, so that makes it hard to talk about anything with any degree of authority.

Which is why I tend to stay out of the climate change threads lately.

__________________