The New Global Warming Thread

[IceCold]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

This is the post I've been referring to.

So, you're asking silly questions to find out more about ONE PERSON's silly statements, and then trying to paint everyone that disagrees with you with the same silly brush?

Please stop. Respect is required here.

And I answered your main question right after my "herd of commas" joke. (funny, huh?)

[.tritone.]

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate this thread.
I know a lot of people are conflicted on the issue and I'm just proud to be here to witness the birth of what will surely be the argument to end them all.

Some day people will talk of "That one thread on the TG forums" and how it did such an exceptional job of summing up the available variables, putting them in such an order that a clear solution/observation could be found, and once and for all ending the ongoing linguistic conflict between those who believe in man-made global warming, those who believe in natural global warming, and those that live in Buffalo, New York.

Thank you for all of your hard work and Hi Mom!

I added the hi mom because eventually they'll print this thread out and carve it into a 40 foot tall monument.

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by IceCold

So, you're asking silly questions to find out more about ONE PERSON's silly statements, and then trying to paint everyone that disagrees with you with the same silly brush?

Please stop. Respect is required here.

And I answered your main question right after my "herd of commas" joke. (funny, huh?)

I was asking questions to that one person, then others took it upon themselves to chime in for that person, and baited me to respond to their irrelevant flames, so I had to redirected everyone to the questions I asked, since those seemed to have been lost. I stand by my comment that someone who thinks global warming is a trick perpetrated by communists to take over the world is under informed. I didn't say anything else about other beliefs, or my own.

And, yes, your comma joke was very funny. Now I know commie has an "e" (or maybe I'm just pretending to not know how to spell commie, to hide the fact that I'm in the communist cult of global warming).

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by .tritone.

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate this thread.
I know a lot of people are conflicted on the issue and I'm just proud to be here to witness the birth of what will surely be the argument to end them all.

Some day people will talk of "That one thread on the TG forums" and how it did such an exceptional job of summing up the available variables, putting them in such an order that a clear solution/observation could be found, and once and for all ending the ongoing linguistic conflict between those who believe in man-made global warming, those who believe in natural global warming, and those that live in Buffalo, New York.

Thank you for all of your hard work and Hi Mom!

I added the hi mom because eventually they'll print this thread out and carve it into a 40 foot tall monument.

Haha! Indeed.

[IceCold]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I was asking questions to that one person, then others took it upon themselves to chime in for that person, and baited me to respond to their irrelevant flames, so I had to redirected everyone to the questions I asked, since those seemed to have been lost. I stand by my comment that someone who thinks global warming is a trick perpetrated by communists to take over the world is under informed. I didn't say anything else about other beliefs, or my own.

Well, ok, but remember that you're in a discussion forum, and that when you post here, everyone may chime in. I see what you mean, but, in the context of the entire thread, it sounded like you WERE voicing your beliefs to everyone here.

[xTYBALTx]

Originally Posted by .tritone.

I'd just like to say that I really appreciate this thread.
I know a lot of people are conflicted on the issue and I'm just proud to be here to witness the birth of what will surely be the argument to end them all.

Some day people will talk of "That one thread on the TG forums" and how it did such an exceptional job of summing up the available variables, putting them in such an order that a clear solution/observation could be found, and once and for all ending the ongoing linguistic conflict between those who believe in man-made global warming, those who believe in natural global warming, and those that live in Buffalo, New York.

Thank you for all of your hard work and Hi Mom!

I added the hi mom because eventually they'll print this thread out and carve it into a 40 foot tall monument.

This thread's nothin.

We've already put to rest everything from gay marriage to prohibition to school prayer, gun control, immigration, and even polygamy. Our wisdom is endless, and it's great to know that we're having a real effect on the world - all right here from TG!

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by GlobalWarmin

I didn't want to have spend time debating this with anyone, but I'll give you the respect of replying to your remarks, even though aren't responses to my questions.

First, the universe is cooling because it is expanding. The solar system may predicted to be gradually warming because of the sun, who's surface temperature is not changing at this time, but I don't think we have the comparable temperature data from other planets to determine that they are also warming at the same rates as the Earth. The IPCC report, which I have not read in entirety, and which was also edited to give a more conservative slant, was supposed to have addressed solar radiation and found it unlikely to be a factor. Regardless, solar radiation melting glaciers and ice caps at that rate should still be cause for some concern, especially in consideration of all the other environmental issues facing human civilizations.

Second, the urban heat effect is just another example of man-made global warming. If anything, the urban heat effect makes global warming worse and more real, opposed to being proof of incorrect temperature data that disproves global warming. Also, I believe that global surface and atmosphere temperatures confirm warming predictions made (not everywhere %100 of the time, but enough), so the placement of ground weather stations near major urban centers I don't think changes much. But, I don't doubt that weather stations near large cities report higher temperature than rural ones, but that is still the accurate surface temperature of that location.

Third, I'd like to know more about how rising temperatures have broken the relationship between C02 and temperature, and how the ice and soil measurements of C02 have become useless.

Fourth, global dimming does not cause warming. It causes cooling, and is now known to have been masking the effects of global brightening and greenhouse gases.

Lastly, I got a few pages into this thread and I'd seen enough. I just got such a kick out of hearing about this supposed communist global warming cult on the last page that I had to ask about it.

The IPCC report marginalizes Solar Radiation's impact on warming. It is a natural cycle and the planets in our solar system are warming, the links are in this thread if you care to read through it. It will cool on it's own as it has numerous times in the past. See [ur;=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/11/warm11.xml] Cosmic Rays Blamed for Global Warming[/url].

The issue is that Urban Heat Island's are used as indicative temperature over a wide area. Unfortunately, less then half in a current survey are properly placed with many in the middle of parking lots, near air conditioner exhausts, next to international airport runways, at sewage plants. Ironically, the weather stations that are in rural locations are reporting no temperature swings while the ones sitting under air conditioner exhausts are showing increases in temperature.

Here are two different measuring stations and their appropriate readings. Here is an example of a poorly placed weather station and it's associated chart.

Marysville, California which is not to spec


Orland, California which is to NOAA specs


You can see why people have an issue with the numbers when half of the current weather stations are not to spec, but this is what people are using to gauge Global Warming. The two stations are less then 50 miles apart, but is the weather THAT different or more likely garbage in garbage out. When you combine that with the fact that the majority of weather stations are located in heavily urban areas and you end up with misleading information.

See Watts Surface Station blog. Here is a Satellite Image of Night Lights in the midwest overlayed with Red Dots of weather stations used by groups such as the IPCC.
http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/


This isn't indicative of global warming as much as it is taking the highest temperatures in given regions to get averages. I would suggest in order to avoid global warming, drive 30 minutes outside of the city. Leejo linked a study earlier in this thread that in fact showed that low level atmosphere temperatures were not warming and were being disregarded by the IPCC (didn't fit their agenda).

Ice Core data suffers from a number of faults. One, ice is not a closed system which is the assumption that must be made in order to accept that the CO2 is trapped. Two, if you take snow from the surface, it will not have a representative amount of CO2 represented even in the cracks. Three, chemical processes still occur deep within the ice always altering the chemical makeup of trapped air bubbles. Four, the pressure differential from being brought from well below the surface to 1 bar pressure causes the air to expand, the ice to break and the air to escape. The ice refreezes with any number of continuing chemical processes that can occur when mixing with our air. Nextly, in order to drill the ice, they use a liquid mud mixture of water, zinc and iron that taints the results. Lastly, scientists knowingly discard outrider data that doesn't fit within their agenda which can be as high as 43% of their data. Source Zbigniew Jaworski They are manipulating the data to drive a result.

Global Dimming, I am glad I don't have to argue about Global Dimming and Global Lightening as we have had to argue through both already with previous posters indicating that Global Dimming created Greenhouse style clouds trapping heat creating global warming. That conveniently changed to Global Lightening receiving more sun creating global warming.

We do actually have comparable information on other planets in the solar system to indicate warming.

Triton: http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/199...runc_sys.shtml
Mars: http://mars.jpl.nasa.gov/odyssey/new...20031208a.html
Jupiter: http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture02470.html
Pluto: http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/pluto.html

But of course, if this an issue, I would prefer to mass dump iron into the ocean then give 3% of the world's GDP as those who would like to tax us wish. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...ron-ocean.html

Lucky Shot

[marstein]

Luckyshot - weather stations that are not all placed correctly, the sun getting hotter, leejo blowing CO2 (it's really methane) -- all this stuff doesn't sound convincing. Have you seen a Youtube video that unmasks all those scientists as conspirators that are all out to make a lot of money?

I think a read quite a lot of diverse news and those big findings that you cite - I haven't heard about them. Sure I am not the brightest light around, but at least there is a controversy. You can't claim that climate change has been completely disproven.

In any case: the question is what do we do? There is a good chance that our activities are dangerous. If we reduce carbon emissions and are more energy efficient what's not too like? Of course some industries (e.g. oil) would take a hit. And that's why some politicians - the best money can buy - don't want to deal with it.

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by marstein

Luckyshot - weather stations that are not all placed correctly, the sun getting hotter, leejo blowing CO2 (it's really methane) -- all this stuff doesn't sound convincing. Have you seen a Youtube video that unmasks all those scientists as conspirators that are all out to make a lot of money?

I think a read quite a lot of diverse news and those big findings that you cite - I haven't heard about them. Sure I am not the brightest light around, but at least there is a controversy. You can't claim that climate change has been completely disproven.

In any case: the question is what do we do? There is a good chance that our activities are dangerous. If we reduce carbon emissions and are more energy efficient what's not too like? Of course some industries (e.g. oil) would take a hit. And that's why some politicians - the best money can buy - don't want to deal with it.

I don't believe the Main Stream Media makes money by making people feel safe. In fact, they generally draw viewers/readers when there is a horrible tragedy. Likewise, I don't feel that flawed computer models, scientists(The Best Money can Buy) with an agenda (IPCC driven in order to create a reason to tax the wealthiest nations), and jumping on CO2 when the earth does naturally adjust and runs through cycles does not prove that CO2 is even a major cause of global warming.

I don't see a reason to create a worldwide recession over something that hasn't been proven. Just like all those football experts who picked Appalachian State over Michigan, even with their Fancy Computer Models and 100 years worth of data. But heck, did you know that Sea Otters are dying out in Western Alaska? Too much ice,Who'da Thunk it!.

Lucky Shot

[Kerostasis]

Originally Posted by marstein

Of course some industries (e.g. oil) would take a hit. And that's why some politicians - the best money can buy - don't want to deal with it.

So...I guess you believe that sabotaging the oil industry wouldn't effect anything else outside the oil industry, right? Only the oil companies would start losing profits? Because there certainly aren't any other industries that rely on oil-power or coal-power to fuel their industrial activities, and I can't imagine we'd do something so silly as to have millions of people driving cars around everyday that are also run on oil. No, it seems perfectly logical to me to assume we can sink the oil industry without any negative side effects whatsoever.

Have fun bicycling to work! Its environmentally friendly!

[Lucky Shot]

Originally Posted by Kerostasis

So...I guess you believe that sabotaging the oil industry wouldn't effect anything else outside the oil industry, right? Only the oil companies would start losing profits? Because there certainly aren't any other industries that rely on oil-power or coal-power to fuel their industrial activities, and I can't imagine we'd do something so silly as to have millions of people driving cars around everyday that are also run on oil. No, it seems perfectly logical to me to assume we can sink the oil industry without any negative side effects whatsoever.

Have fun bicycling to work! Its environmentally friendly!

He wouldn't be able to. Many of the materials to operate the bike (Grease for the Chain, Plastic Resins for the brakes) come from Oil. I would say he would walk, but he wouldn't have shoes either.

Lucky Shot

[leejo]

Originally Posted by IceCold

But a cult is a that, not a who...

Sure and we could talk about a cult that wants(singular) to take over the world, or we can talk about a cult of scientists who want(no s - plural) to take over the world.

In the former we are talking about the cult as an entity, in the latter we are talking about the cult as a collection of people. The Rutgers team that won the NCAA championship is the same team who appeared on what's his face's show.

Another pick-up line:
"I don't know if it's global warming or if I'm just happy to see you, but my p-level is rising."

[leejo]

Originally Posted by .tritone.

I added the hi mom because eventually they'll print this thread out and carve it into a 40 foot tall monument.

I hope it's in the form of a humongous polar bear penis bone.

[GlobalWarmin]

Lucky, while I of course have some disagreements with your content, I appreciate the time you took explain about the weather stations and such.

However, I'm curious as to why you see the science behind the small amount of doubt that the world's scientists have to be considered so accurate and true, but the overwhelming majority of predictions and measurements that very heavily show the opposite are considered junk?

Lucky Strike, do you really think that there were no scientists on the IPCC, or any that have published any other report showing a high likelihood of man-made global warming, who have considered all your information? Do you really think there are people slapping themselves on the forehead saying," Wow. Why didn't I think of that? This changes everything."? I will say that at one point in time there was a true scientific debate about global warming, but I think that time has passed. I think I even remember a time in the debate when one side was denying it was even getting warmer.

It's also rather amusing that some considerer the scientists to be more motivated by money than oil companies and industrial nations, as if these scientists couldn't find work in any other field than studying the climate. Oil companies and industrial nations have so much more invested in this than scientists do, and the best their counter arguments against the scientist can do is try to show reasonable doubt. It's a good thing that people want to question the findings of scientists, but I don't think money makes for a very convincing argument against them. Weighing the profits of scientists over the profits of nations and the oil industry doesn't make sense.

The only popular news media that really spends any time talking about this issue (I am guessing) is right-wing media; the mainstream media probably spends the least amount of time talking about science and the environment than anything! So, it's pretty easy to reject the idea that the mainstream media gains enough by reporting about man-made global warming to be making it up, because they don't even talk about it. The large right-wing media, which thrives on divisive issues, has a much stronger case for using global warming to get viewers though -- and those viewers would want to hear the opposite of what scientists are saying today.

So, Lucky Strike, the point I am getting at is do you agree with the statement by Greasy Mullet that global warming is hoax perpetrated to install Communist governments across the world? Since you mentioned taxes so many times, I'm guessing that you are a right-winger. Certainly, there has to be a specific, diabolical reason in your mind why the entire industrial world agreed with such certainty that some of the warming we are experiencing on Earth right now is man-made, when, in fact, that is absolutely not true and they are making it all up, hoping the honorable oil industry won't check their work?

[GlobalWarmin]

Originally Posted by Lucky Shot

He wouldn't be able to. Many of the materials to operate the bike (Grease for the Chain, Plastic Resins for the brakes) come from Oil. I would say he would walk, but he wouldn't have shoes either.

Lucky Shot

Oils come from plants and animals too. Do you think we didn't lubricate machines before petroleum?