Political Forum
     

Go Back   Political Forum > Political Issues > Environment & Conservation


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #551 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2008, 04:38 PM
akc814ilv's Avatar
akc814ilv akc814ilv is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Utah
Age: 27
Posts: 751
usa us utah
akc814ilv will become famous soon enoughakc814ilv will become famous soon enough
Credits: 6,706
Default

You guys are missing the point with the rising temperatures.

YES it naturally goes up and down. That is true and you guys are 100% correct with that.

But look at the science that so many here have posted. It is going up UNNATURALLY high and just over the last decade or so.
__________________
"The marvel of all history is the patience with which men and women submit to burdens unnecessarily laid upon them by their governments"

--George Washington

"Never spend your money before you have earned it."

--Thomas Jefferson

"One man with courage is a majority."

--Thomas Jefferson
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Red Cross - Donate Today    Save the Rainforest
  #552 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2008, 05:49 PM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,304
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beachbum View Post
temperature goes up a little for a while, then temperature goes down a little gor a while... pretty self explanitory..

but according to you: the earth in 30 years -->

right?
Where did I say "the earth in 30 years --> " - or anything remotely resembling that?
__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P
Reply With Quote
  #553 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2008, 06:39 PM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,304
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi View Post
You want some cheese with that whine? Seriously, you refuse to answer my questions, insist that without any evidence or sources of your own you can cast aside mine and demand I provide more evidence is absurd enough. Then you somehow have mustered the audacity to say things like "I don't deserve to be treated fairly" and that I'm immature in the same post?
I really don't understand what you think you are finding evidence of. I have been challenging those in this thread who have claimed that there are scientists who claim the AGW is not occurring - to show me some peer-reviewed scientific publications by these scientists to support this opinion. No one has done that yet.

You have linked to some papers which have suggested that there are factors which may limit the impact of AGW to be less than generally predicted, or at the lower end of what is generally predicted. Fine - I have no problem with that.

My main argument is with those that claim there is any significant scientific research suggesting that AGW is not occurring.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi View Post
The fact of the matter is that you are like all of the blind faithful AGW believers. You want to hold onto your views and attack anyone with ad hominems who disagrees with you, prove they are funded by oil (The truth is I'm raking in millions of dollars to write this post), or do anything but admit that the science doesn't warrant the drastic sorts of actions the enviromentalist crowd insists we make.

Remember the last Great Al Gore Debate? Neither Do I.
(Joke stolen from Climate Skeptic)
This is a ridiculous generalisation that does not reflect the posts I hacve made here. I have no idea what you think the "actions the enviromentalist crowd insists we make" are nor do hava any idea what Al Gore has said nor do I care. Please remember - we are not all Americans here, and many of us have no interest whatsoever about what you read in your popular media. Please stick to the point and address the content of the posts - don't go bringing your own petty prejudices into it



Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi View Post
True, I had assumed by how long this thread was that the topic had been brought up before. My Bad. However, you guys never just asked that question, you insisted that I hadn't provided readable evidence and was mocking you for not reading anything. If you had just asked "I'm not sure where to look for this cooling period you were talking about, and not sure where I can see what the lines on the graph mean" or something, I would have gladly oblidged. Instead you just complained about my sources, without even going through a smidgen of trouble to analyze them.
You had been asked been asked - but your answers made no sense or seemed to keep changing

From Post 426
What exactly is this "Industrial Age" you keep speaking of?

In post 428 you answered me:
Cooling that occured during the Industrialization of the world.
Its commonly referred to as the "Little Ice Age" as well.


The "Little Ice Age" is generally the period from the 1200s -1600s - nothing to do with - "the Industrialization of the world".

"The Industrialization of the world" - to most people would mean the period from about 1800 to the present.

Now you are saying you were referring to "the 1940s to the 1970s"

!?!?!?!

Is it any wonder we are confused? Do you have any idea what you are talking about


Quote:
Originally Posted by SuperDinoYoshi View Post
If you had looked, it would be clear that the key and an article further explaining the graph were included. You just insisted that nothing usuable was there, you didn't admit that you couldn't find what was there.
You posted a link to a graph with no key. A graph with no key is meaningless. It was not clear that the key to the graph lay on a completely different page.

If you want to link to a graph - link to one that has a key.
__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P
Reply With Quote
  #554 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2008, 11:03 PM
Professor Peabody's Avatar
Professor Peabody Professor Peabody is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Age: 50
Posts: 1,637
usa us california
Professor Peabody has disabled reputation
Credits: 8,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akc814ilv View Post
You guys are missing the point with the rising temperatures.

YES it naturally goes up and down. That is true and you guys are 100% correct with that.

But look at the science that so many here have posted. It is going up UNNATURALLY high and just over the last decade or so.
How does it compare with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when the Arctic heated up to a balmy 23°C (73°F)? Or the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago?

There were no man made causes in those days, is it warmer now? Has the temperature risen faster than it did then?
Reply With Quote
  #555 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 01:03 AM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,304
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
How does it compare with the Paleocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum when the Arctic heated up to a balmy 23°C (73°F)? Or the Medieval Warm Period of 1,000 years ago?

There were no man made causes in those days, is it warmer now? Has the temperature risen faster than it did then?
Yes, there appears to have been an increase in global temperatures some 50 million years ago that was obviously not caused by anthropogenic emissions. Yes, there are many factors that may impact on the earths climate more profoundly than anthropogenic emissions.

I think it would be quite impossible to determine exactly how fast temperatures rose 50 million years ago. Why is this relevant?
__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P
Reply With Quote
  #556 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 01:32 AM
bugalugs bugalugs is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 1,304
australia au queensland
bugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud ofbugalugs has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,565
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
Mars has also been experiencing global warming. Since man can't be a factor on that planet, doesn't it suggest that perhaps a factor other than man, i.e. the sun, is responsible for the warming on both planets?
Yes - it appears that Mars has been warming, so it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that warming on the two planets may be linked - and as you rightly point out - the obvious answer is that the sun may be warming both planets.

If your hypothesis is correct - it would follow that there would be similar impact on all plantary bodies orbiting the sun - ie. 6 other planets and their numerous satellites and other planetoids. Is there warming on all of these other bodies?. With many bodies orbiting the sun which have a "climate" - it stands to reason that these climates will be constantly changing, some going up - some going down. Are you sure you are not just basing your hypothesis on a coincidence?

The other key to your hypothesis is to show that solar output has actually been increasing to cause this warming:

Two scientists* from the MPI for Solar System Research have calculated for the last 150 years the Sun’s main parameters affecting climate, using current measurements and the newest models: the total radiation, the ultraviolet output, and the Sun’s magnetic field (which modulates the cosmic ray intensity). They come to the conclusion that the variations on the Sun run parallel to climate changes for most of that time, indicating that the Sun has indeed influenced the climate in the past. Just how large this influence is, is subject to further investigation. However, it is also clear that since about 1980, while the total solar radiation, its ultraviolet component, and the cosmic ray intensity all exhibit the 11-year solar periodicity, there has otherwise been no significant increase in their values. In contrast, the Earth has warmed up considerably within this time period. This means that the Sun is not the cause of the present global warming.

(*Sami K. Solanki, Natalie A. Krivova
Can Solar Variability Explain Global Warming Since 1970?
Journal of Geophysical Research 108, 1200 (2003)))

http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrati...lease20040802/

Of course - if you can find a published scientific paper that argues that the warming on earth and mars are both being caused solely by the sun - I would be happy to consider it
__________________
Have you ever stood toe to toe with someone that was intent on kicking your arse? C-D-P
Reply With Quote
  #557 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 05:45 AM
hellvsheaven's Avatar
hellvsheaven hellvsheaven is offline
Contributor
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 141
usa
hellvsheaven is an unknown quantity at this point
Credits: 711
Default The all powerful Global Warming...

Global warming, it's not going to happen. Scientist are already saying the Ice Caps are 25% thicker than average, so you should be worried about Global Cooling. And besides, The earth changes all the time, what cause the first Global Warming way back then when there wasn't any humans to supposedly "Cause" it?

We didn't do anything to cause the Ice Caps to melt, or Freeze. It's part of the cycle of the Earth, nothing scientific to know that. If your so worried about Global Warming occuring, then be my guest and move to a different planet.
__________________
In Fort Jackson, South Carolina! Be back in November!
Reply With Quote
  #558 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 07:37 AM
Professor Peabody's Avatar
Professor Peabody Professor Peabody is offline
Commentator
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Republik of Kalifornia
Age: 50
Posts: 1,637
usa us california
Professor Peabody has disabled reputation
Credits: 8,577
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bugalugs View Post
Yes - it appears that Mars has been warming, so it is a reasonable hypothesis to suggest that warming on the two planets may be linked - and as you rightly point out - the obvious answer is that the sun may be warming both planets.

If your hypothesis is correct - it would follow that there would be similar impact on all plantary bodies orbiting the sun - ie. 6 other planets and their numerous satellites and other planetoids. Is there warming on all of these other bodies?. With many bodies orbiting the sun which have a "climate" - it stands to reason that these climates will be constantly changing, some going up - some going down. Are you sure you are not just basing your hypothesis on a coincidence?

Of course - if you can find a published scientific paper that argues that the warming on earth and mars are both being caused solely by the sun - I would be happy to consider it
Quote:
Bright sun, warm Earth. Coincidence?

Lorne Gunter, National Post Published: Monday, March 12, 2007

Mars's ice caps are melting, and Jupiter is developing a second giant red spot, an enormous hurricane-like storm.

The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.

Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.

Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."

http://www.nationalpost.com/story.ht...6-5ce1e02dced7
Do you suggest that man made CO2 is floating across the vast voids of space and causing warming on other planets? What could cause all these planets to warm?
Reply With Quote
  #559 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 09:35 AM
PatriotNews's Avatar
PatriotNews PatriotNews is offline
Analyst
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Occupied San Francisco Bay Area
Posts: 1,953
usa us california
PatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud ofPatriotNews has much to be proud of
Credits: 9,594
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by akc814ilv View Post
You guys are missing the point with the rising temperatures.

YES it naturally goes up and down. That is true and you guys are 100% correct with that.

But look at the science that so many here have posted. It is going up UNNATURALLY high and just over the last decade or so.
No, it isn't...The globe has not exceeded the temperatures set 10 years ago, in spite of all the hyped up doom and gloom climate change models of the "global warming crowd", who apparently are changing their names to the "crazy climate change crowd", now that it is obvious the globe is not warming.


Quote:
St. LOUIS (ResourceInvestor.com) -- The BBC today aired a story confirming what responsible scientists have been saying for some time – that there has been no notable variation in global temperatures for the past ten years.

This is an inconvenient truth for the vast edifice being built atop the myth that human related carbon dioxide has exceeded some imagined tipping point, turning the world into a deadly hotbox...
a. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide is irrelevant to greenhouse effects.
Water vapor constitutes 95% of the greenhouse effect.
b. Human activity is responsible for just 3% of CO2 emissions. The other 97% comes from natural sources.
c. CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere are not historically unusual, despite the IPCC’s false claim that 379ppmv is “far above” the “natural range” for the past 650,000 years. As recently as 1942, CO2 was 400ppmv. More reliable data shows that over the last 10,000 years CO2 concentrations generally exceeded 300ppmv. It is also stands to reason that even if CO2 concentrations are unusual, it is irresponsible to ascribe most of the increase to anthropogenic causes given that humans are responsible for so little of it.
d. The assumptions of CO2 glaciology used to infer historically lower levels of CO2 are demonstrably false.
e. The correct interpretation of CO2 ice core data reveals the gas increases following temperature increases. In other words, the consensus has cause and effect completely reversed. When the earth warms up, CO2 is traded from oceans to the atmosphere and vice versa.
From: Anthropogenic Global Warming Hoax Heats Up

By Tim Wood
04 Apr 2008 at 02:42 PM GMT-04:00
http://www.resourceinvestor.com/pebble.asp?relid=41685
__________________
We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. -- Ann Coulter
Reply With Quote
  #560 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2008, 12:07 PM
MannieD's Avatar
MannieD MannieD is offline
Sr. Correspondent
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: New England
Age: 57
Posts: 822
usa us new hampshire
MannieD is on a distinguished road
Credits: 4,185
Default

From bugalug's link:
Quote:
According to a much discussed model proposed by Danish researchers, the ions produced by cosmic rays act as condensation nuclei for larger suspension particles and thus contribute to cloud formation. With increased solar activity (and stronger magnetic fields), the cosmic ray intensity decreases, and with it the amount of cloud coverage, resulting in a rise of temperatures on the Earth. Conversely, a reduction in solar activity produces lower temperatures.
Because Mars has no clouds, Sun can not be responsible for the increase in temperature on Mars. Evidence also suggests that the warming is not global, but regional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
Do you suggest that man made CO2 is floating across the vast voids of space and causing warming on other planets? What could cause all these planets to warm?
Quote:
The existing Great Red Spot is 300 years old and twice the size of Earth. The new storm -- Red Spot Jr. -- is thought to be the result of a sudden warming on our solar system's largest planet. Dr. Imke de Pater of Berkeley University says some parts of Jupiter are now as much as six degrees Celsius warmer than just a few years ago.
"some parts" is not the same as global. "some parts" of the earth have a temperature of 100 degrees, but that does not mean the global temperature is 100 degrees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
Neptune's moon, Triton, studied in 1989 after the unmanned Voyageur probe flew past, seems to have heated up significantly since then. Parts of its frozen nitrogen surface have begun melting and turning to gas, making Triton's atmosphere denser.
Summer is arriving on Triton.
Quote:
The moon is approaching an extreme southern summer, a season that occurs every few hundred years. During this special time, the moon's southern hemisphere receives more direct sunlight. The equivalent on Earth would be having the sun directly overhead at noon north of Lake Superior during a northern summer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Professor Peabody View Post
Even Pluto has warmed slightly in recent years, if you can call -230C instead of -233C "warmer."
Pluto's current position in the solar system is the cause of its warming
Quote:
The increasing temperatures are more likely explained by two simple facts: Pluto's highly elliptical orbit significantly changes the planet's distance from the Sun during its long "year," which lasts 248 Earth years; and unlike most of the planets, Pluto's axis is nearly in line with the orbital plane, tipped 122 degrees. Earth's axis is tilted 23.5 degrees.
If the sun was responsible for an increase in the rate of warming, then all the planets and moons should be showing signs of warming.
__________________
Es ist nichts schrecklicher als eine tätige Unwissenheit.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

Sponsored Links

All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
LinkBacks Enabled by vBSEO 3.1.0
Template-Modifikationen durch TMS
vBCredits v1.3 ©2007 by Darkwaltz4
Advertisement System V2.1 By   Branden