Global warming is real
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
Dexter....
If you could provide some data on how much the glaciers were reduced over the period of planetary change prior to human activity that might be helpful. Or is it a case that the glaciers and ice-caps melting have been a part of the normal cycle of the planet before and it's simply the end of life as we know it...as a part or the normal planetary cycles...
I'm willing to believe that orbits change, that radiation (microwave..background noise...etc. all these things are in motion...
I don't believe that we can apply historical records ...from as long ago as records started being kept by this species to predict the effect of human activity on this balance of gasses we rely upon. No data that I've seen suggests that the entire metric of atmospheric composition can be verified in terms of the effects of human industry...because we haven't had the effects of human industry on the scale of current activity...since those records were first created...
While ice-cores and radiometry readings can give us clues about what the pre-historical climate of the planet may have been...is that really any use when you put human industry at the current level into the mix...?
If you could provide some data on how much the glaciers were reduced over the period of planetary change prior to human activity that might be helpful. Or is it a case that the glaciers and ice-caps melting have been a part of the normal cycle of the planet before and it's simply the end of life as we know it...as a part or the normal planetary cycles...
I'm willing to believe that orbits change, that radiation (microwave..background noise...etc. all these things are in motion...
I don't believe that we can apply historical records ...from as long ago as records started being kept by this species to predict the effect of human activity on this balance of gasses we rely upon. No data that I've seen suggests that the entire metric of atmospheric composition can be verified in terms of the effects of human industry...because we haven't had the effects of human industry on the scale of current activity...since those records were first created...
While ice-cores and radiometry readings can give us clues about what the pre-historical climate of the planet may have been...is that really any use when you put human industry at the current level into the mix...?
Of course, but it is hardly the focused target of the drama being perpetrated upon us.
Yup and despite all its flaws, sheeple still follow it along blindly. But like I said, the flaw in the model has exasorbated the issue, the focus on but one part of the issue is telling, the absence of address to other major human contributions, such as deforestation and natural occurances, leave the taste of "hidden agenda" in my mouth.
I'll be waiting for the hypocrits to mock the "hidden agenda" comment, since I stole it from one of their dear leaders. It should make for an amusing read though.
Oh yes juan, I'm an Ostrich, but no malice was intented of course.The ostriches just can't seem to understand the science. Bush and his cronies refused to understand it and Harper went right along with them. We will notice over the next few weeks that both Bush and Harper have changed course by about a hundred and eighty degrees. Now the irresponsible right can't get enough of climate change. What was a plot to "suck money" from the good guys is now a "real danger that we all have to address". Funny.....
Seeing as you continually miss the fact that I agreethere is a climate issue, I'll say it again...
Something is wrong with our environment!
It is hardly all the fault of the SUV class and the oil barons. And until the the scientists involved in this botched sales pitch address all the contibuting factors, they are little more then aping the predetermined conclusion of the socialist engineering class> Which I might add, live pretty high off the hog, in large homes, complete with all the over blown necessaties of life, while the working class will suffer the effects of the Protocol, the elitists that force it upon us will feel but a mosquito bite, while we itch and bleed out.
That's easy Mikey, they once reached the Ohio valley, but the SUV's the dinosaurs were drivin, melted them all.
Good thing to, we wouldn't be able to slash and burn all the forests along the Oak Ridges Morain in order to put up xerox'd housing to ruin a perfectly good water shead and home to countless wild life, but don't let that stop anyone from focusing on the real issues of environmental damage.
No. And here's why: here's the CO2 chart. I was going to edit it into my other post but the server kept timing out on me. Note that CO2 concentrations are much higher now than they've ever been in the last 400,000 years, and the projection for 2050 is a little alarming. What I'm suggesting is, first, that most of the temperature change we've seen so far is part of a natural cycle and the provable human contribution is about at the level of uncertainty in the data. Second, it appears that we're pumping a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature ever has, at least over the last 400,000 years, and we'd better stop doing that.
It also seems worth noting that Canada could shut down tomorrow and it wouldn't have the slightest effect on CO2 concentrations. It's the big contributors like the U.S., China, and India that can make a difference.
Absolutely, but one didn't sign, but is actually trying to assist, the other two are exempt.
Great math skills are not required to see this as a colosal waste of time, money and effort being dished out for this.
Bear
I'm sorry I'm a little.. or a lot..daft and you'll have to make that post a little clearer for me...
One idea...it's perfectly acceptable in the name of progress (business) to build enormous oil tankers that have devastated marine life all over the planet becuase the wheels of progress demand lubrication...
Another idea....
No single component, not burning fossil fuels, not cow-farts, not deforestaion is ultimately responsible for what's happening to our climate....
The focus on petroleum and fossil fuel use....is a tiny part of the whole problem...it's just really quick and easy to focus on that and that alone...
I suppose there's never been any movement (social movement) in all of human history that's as important as the affects human industry and greed have had on our planet. We can all get behind banning nukes...unless you're America or Russia or some world power with lots of nukes to begin with...but when it comes to recognizing and internalizing the greater effects of minute sociological changes on the environment and living conditions of human beings..."I'm sorry the number you have dialed...is no longer in service"....
I'm sorry I'm a little.. or a lot..daft and you'll have to make that post a little clearer for me...
One idea...it's perfectly acceptable in the name of progress (business) to build enormous oil tankers that have devastated marine life all over the planet becuase the wheels of progress demand lubrication...
Another idea....
No single component, not burning fossil fuels, not cow-farts, not deforestaion is ultimately responsible for what's happening to our climate....
The focus on petroleum and fossil fuel use....is a tiny part of the whole problem...it's just really quick and easy to focus on that and that alone...
I suppose there's never been any movement (social movement) in all of human history that's as important as the affects human industry and greed have had on our planet. We can all get behind banning nukes...unless you're America or Russia or some world power with lots of nukes to begin with...but when it comes to recognizing and internalizing the greater effects of minute sociological changes on the environment and living conditions of human beings..."I'm sorry the number you have dialed...is no longer in service"....
The natural evidence that points to manmade climate change is overwhelming, but the skeptics are hanging on to outdated beliefs and outdated arguments that don't fit the evidence.
What we need is a lesson on how to talk to the skeptics....:|
http://tinyurl.com/yf48tb
What we need is a lesson on how to talk to the skeptics....:|
http://tinyurl.com/yf48tb
Also from the IPCC report, recent trends cannot be explained without anthopogenic causes, and going back to the first report released in 1990, the IPCC reports have been remarkably good at predicting CO2 and temperature changes, but underpredicted the sea level changes.
Pretty big research project you're asking for there, but I can tell you this off the top. 18,000 years ago what is now Canada was almost completely covered with glacial ice and by 8000 years ago the landscape south of the 60th parallel was approximately as we see it today. The ice is still retreating, as it has been for 18,000 years, but it seems to be accelerating. The north polar ice cap has lost about half its thickness since 1960, and the extent of summer ice cover has shrunk by about 20%.
Globe&Mail's server seems to be back up now. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/climatechange
Global warming=Real
All man made=Bogus
I can not put my support behind a social engineering project.
If the environment was the focus of Kyoto and the whining about the environment from the elitest class, they would address all environmental issues, not just the socialy acceptable and socialist wealth distrobutive factors enshrined in Kyoto.
Kyoto will fix nothing. It will not regrow trees, bring back well water to the Oak Ridges water shead, revive decimated wildlife, displaced by urban sprawl, it will not decontaminate the ground waters the soil the mother.
It is social engineering, all the scientific data decrying the issue of global warming will not fix a damn thing if it is all in the effort to promote Kyoto.
That would be a necessity, if anyone in here was trying to dismiss global warming as a hoax. I don't see that from anyone. I see people exposing the snake oil sales men and their hapless sheeple pouring their heart and souls into a big con job.
Kyoto will fix nothing.
You can post all sarcastic wit you want, minus any malice of course, and still not provide one shred of evidence that Kyoto will work. I on the other hand have already proved it is failing in Europe and the people are paying for.
Big European business, is not changing.
Little European working men and woiman, have seen a 65% increase in their bills because of it.
Where is all the socialist outcrying for the little man now???
The European little man is being squashed!!!
We're next!!!
Also a lesson on what scientists mean when they say things. The evidence is not overwhelming, it's merely "very likely," as the most recent document we're discussing here says. Not the same thing. The evidence, I agree, is now pretty compelling, much stronger than it was even a year ago, and the uncertainties are not an argument in favour of ignoring it. A glance at those charts I posted, especially the way CO2 concentrations and temperature changes move together with a slight time lag, may in fact mean that it's already too late to do much about it on anything less than a time period of some thousands of years. The climate is warming, no question about that, and human activities appear to be accelerating it, so it behooves us to protect ourselves and try to minimize our contribution. Kyoto's not it. That's the only conclusion I can make.
Minus your education and intellect, that is my point entirely, thank you sir.
Flatterer. With me, flattery will get you everywhere.. .
Formal education, maybe so, but I don't think you should take a back seat to anybody in the intellect department.Maybe that's your intent Bear but that's not the spirit your contributions convey.
Dexter is right is saying that Kyoto isn't the silver bullet...but you should never go to a gunfight with an empty gun...
Sure the tundra is melting...that doesn't mean global warming as a human effect is causing it...Sure there are great ice sheets melting and glaciers all over the planet are disappearing...that doesn't mean human activity is to blame....
So it makes sense to do nothing?....To accept that rising oceans and far more energetic thermal disturbances...tornadoes hurricanes etc. are simply part of the natural course of events?
Sure we can do nothing and wait until we have absolutely accurate data...hell the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, unicorns bound across the countryside....until we have this absolute proof that seems necessary to convince people that we are accelerating a natural phenomenon..we can just ignore it all...is that about it Bear?
Diseases aren't conquered by ignoring them and hoping they'll go away... Disease and bacteria are just as natural as anything else we've bothered to look at....but when we decide that a strategy to combat the effects of disease and plagues is dismissed because we refuse to believe that invisible little guys called germs are behind this illness or this sickness.....
Dexter is right is saying that Kyoto isn't the silver bullet...but you should never go to a gunfight with an empty gun...
Sure the tundra is melting...that doesn't mean global warming as a human effect is causing it...Sure there are great ice sheets melting and glaciers all over the planet are disappearing...that doesn't mean human activity is to blame....
So it makes sense to do nothing?....To accept that rising oceans and far more energetic thermal disturbances...tornadoes hurricanes etc. are simply part of the natural course of events?
Sure we can do nothing and wait until we have absolutely accurate data...hell the earth is flat, the moon is made of green cheese, unicorns bound across the countryside....until we have this absolute proof that seems necessary to convince people that we are accelerating a natural phenomenon..we can just ignore it all...is that about it Bear?
Diseases aren't conquered by ignoring them and hoping they'll go away... Disease and bacteria are just as natural as anything else we've bothered to look at....but when we decide that a strategy to combat the effects of disease and plagues is dismissed because we refuse to believe that invisible little guys called germs are behind this illness or this sickness.....
Global climate change is not about social engineering. Global warming is , whether you want to believe it or not, is a fact of life.
Whining about Kyoto began in 1998. Kyoto was, and is, a tiny first step. We have been forced to learn a lot in the nine years since Kyoto was first signed by anyone.
"Kyoto will fix nothing". Absolutely right, as long as we ignore it. The original Kyoto Accord is now out of date and the world now needs a bigger, tougher version.
You, Bear, cannot complain about sarcasm....it is your stock in trade.
E.U. countries are reducing their emissions, and certainly it is costing them. It will cost North americans as well......What choice do we have? It is our children we have to leave the world to.
That isn't scientists fault. That's the press and environuts activities.
Weather is weather & climate is climate; there's a difference. Weather is what you see when you look out the window, climate is the general trend over a period of time (like a season) in comparison to the same periods of time in other years.
In spite of the fact that Europe had a severely harsh winter in 2005/2006 the mean temperature of the globe went up for the year 2006.
We know more about climate now than we did in 1970.
Press is press, public hysteria is public hysteria. Neither have a bearing on whether science's information is fact or fantasy. People who listen to the news or environuts for information are foolish. There are dozens of publications around that contain the actual info and do not include the emotional claptrap emitted by scaremongers and press.
I don't know about your area but around here the weather people are more right than wrong these days. It used to be that one could look at bugs or ask auntie agatha how the arthritis was in her left elbow to see what the weather was gonna be like and be more accurate. Not so any more.
That's dead wrong. I thought I posted a couple links about models.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000525AD-1223-1354-922383414B7F0000
Read this:
- http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/nationalassessment/overviewtools.htm
http://www.ucar.edu/communications/CCSM/accuracy.html
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_modeling.html
http://www-pcmdi.llnl.gov/ipcc/project_detail.php?ipcc_subproject_id=628
As I previously said, people who listen to scaremongers and environuts are fools. Look at the data available for yourself and learn about the issue then make a decision.
Or look here - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74
Perhaps. Perhaps not:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/04/050427201849.htm
Funny, a few years ago scientists said that global warming would likely cause extremes in weather. Then along came the hurricanes in 2005, 2006 was mild in comparison, but 2006 had a normal hurricane season. Also along came the winter of 2005/2006 in Europe and Russia.
It's scientific truth that science is wrong sometimes or right sometimes? Nuts. That's just an observation.
Anyway, so companies make money. That's the whole idea behind capitalism. What difference does it make that environmentally sensitive companies start popping up and ones that aren't sensitive start winding down? People are still hired for work, the companies pay taxes, etc. I would much rather see a company make profits from selling windmills than some oil giant selling its products. I'd rather work building windmills than work at getting oil outta the ground. So there's a shift in profit making; big deal.
As I commented to another sceptic once; with glaciers receding, polar caps melting, permafrost becoming temporary, ocean temperatures rising, etc. how can you possibly think the planet is not warming?
Ambiguous? There is a preponderance of evidence available pointing to the fact that the planet is warming.
I guess it's only a couple or three glaciers that are receding. :roll:
http://www.kilimanjaro.cc/rwenzoriglaciers.htm
http://pubs.usgs.gov/of/1998/of98-031/recession.htm
http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/iecws/materials/recession_activity.pdf
http://iri.columbia.edu/~amg/greene_grl_1999.pdf
http://geog-www.sbs.ohio-state.edu/faculty/bmark/2005 QSR Mark&Seltzer.pdf
http://www.cosis.net/abstracts/EGU05/07510/EGU05-J-07510.pdf
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=9377590
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/hopkinson/GLAC_BOW.HTM
http://www.atypon-link.com/IAHS/doi/abs/10.1623/hysj.2005.50.6.949?cookieSet=1&journalCode=hysj
http://ppg.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/30/3/285
http://www.nichols.edu/departments/Glacier/glacier_retreat.htm
Thanx!!!Flatterer. With me, flattery will get you everywhere.. .
Perhaps my intent is not clear, but I can assure you I agree there is an issue that requires great concern, but Kyoto does not address it, these scientist address a mere fraction of the damage inflicted on the Mother, and nothing anyone says is changing that.
The agenda is quite clear, social engineering is the goal of these scientist, despite their package that will be the outcome, not the reversal of the damage that is done.
Do you have some proof that I believe otherwise?
Global warming is a very real and serious issue. The tools and science behind the movement that proclaims its alligence to its saving is the lie.
Ignore what?
What are you trying to say?
I think we should focus on the real issue, global polution, not social engineering,ie;Kyoto.
When you and the rest of your ilk do, then we will agree on something. But until then, you are focusing on and promoting a lie.
What can I say, you are my idol, I strive to emulate you. LOL. btw, I wasn't complaining, without malice, I was making fun of the typical response when logic fails to be applied.
Barely and they won't meet their targets either, the big energy producers received more credits then they needed, now they are reeping bigger profits selling them. All the while jacking up the costs and sending that to the consumers.
Way to remain consistant. Up with the little man, down with big business!
I know nothing about what I speak, as you have said, but without malice of course, right juan?