Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Cancer does happen naturally! People get lung cancer who have never smoked a ciggie? It is an abnormal cell reproduction type thing.! Admittedly over exposure to carcinogens can result in an increased chance of the lung cells cells going awry?

That is exactly my point, human influence can increase cancer rate.

Quote by: xyzer People can choose to stop smoking without personal costs or even inconvenience, and reduce their chances of cancer. Can humans reduce their energy use without concurrent costs and inconvenience?

In some cases, you will save money in the long term because you are LESS wasteful. Is that something you have trouble understanding?

Quote by: xyzer Add to this the fact that natural causes have varied climate cycles for millions of years and I think we have a problem? I repeat thes so called solvers of our climate changes ignore the fact that climates major influences are natural and not affected by human behavior. They postulate, using computer simulations and correlations that C02 is the culprit and then jump on that bandwagon..virtually ignoring the simplest, least cost, alternative..adapt using modern technology?

They haven't ignored anything that I am aware of, can you cite a specific example?
Don't you see the irony in your statements about adaptation using modern technology? We can lower our energy consumption through use of more efficient equipment!
So the question is, what will cost more? Becoming more energy efficient, or adapting to climate change? According to the Stern report, it is the former.

[rmnunez]

The surfacestations.org is pretty neat. They are attempting to document the physical surroundings of every surface temperature measurement box in the US (the most rigorous and complete measurement system in the world). Obviously the sign of a denialist anti-science skeptic. For example, here's one in Tahoe CA.




(the condos and tennis court were built in the early 1980's)





So what do you think the "adjustment" for this weather station data is in the computer models? I doubt Tahoe is considered an urban heat island.

[rmnunez]

The hacked climate site is back up and here's the controversial data:
Climate Audit - by Steve McIntyre » A New Leaderboard at the U.S. Open

[xyzer]

The anthropogenic furor(C02 scare) brings to mind this quote by the Greek philosopher, Marcus Aurelius..
"The object of life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane".

I'm comfortable with my skeptical beliefs. Glad that I'm not leaning towards insanity!

[xyzer]

That is exactly my point, human influence can increase cancer rate.

Huh? You are missing the point pooey? Cancer can and does occur naturally. Just like climate change has changed over the eons without any influence from humans? That is, changed by natural factors, even before humans showed up? Now suddely in the 21st century we are hearing that industrialization creating C02 is the culprit?

You and the climate alarmists are injecting the human factor into the mix. And doing so by correlations and computer iterations(models) using questionable data(warmest decade 1990s versus 1930s) and a series of humanly conceived proxies to buttress the arguments?:rolleyes:

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Huh? You are missing the point pooey? Cancer can and does occur naturally. Just like climate change has changed over the eons without any influence from humans? That is, changed by natural factors, even before humans showed up?

And my point was that human activity can increase the risk of cancer, is that concept/analogy to difficult for you to understand?

Quote by: xyzer Now suddely in the 21st century we are hearing that industrialization creating CO2 is the culprit?

Suddenly in the 21st century? This phenomenon was brought to light in the 1980s! How on earth did you miss that? I guess that's what happens when you live under a rock.

Quote by: xyzer You and the climate alarmists are injecting the human factor into the mix. And doing so by correlations and computer iterations(models) using questionable data(warmest decade 1990s versus 1930s) and a series of humanly conceived proxies to buttress the arguments?:rolleyes:

Pray tell, you keep criticising these proxy, but do you have an alternative method of reconstructing the past temperatures? Come on then, show me. Show the scientific world where they've gone wrong, I mean, the way you talk you've obviously got some substance to back it up. :rolleyes:

[xyzer]

Pray tell, you keep criticising these proxy, but do you have an alternative method of reconstructing the past temperatures? Come on then, show me. Show the scientific world where they've gone wrong, I mean, the way you talk you've obviously got some substance to back it up.

I don't need any alternate method of reconstructing past temps because there are records and general evidence of past temperatures...which show temperatures and climate cycles have varied, obviously due to natural influences!
Don't you get it, the climate alarmists have set out to prove their contentious premise by reconstructing past climate records to show that there is reason to suspect human influence in the latest cycle of climate change? Some convert available and proxy evidence into support for their original assumption(premise) that humans are responsible for climate change and can influence it by reducing their energy consumption?

You are like a broken record and force me into the same tactic?

[Chancellor]

Quote by: xyzer I repeat thes so called solvers of our climate changes ignore the fact that climates major influences are natural and not affected by human behavior. There is all kinds of evidence of that. And evidence that it has been going on since long before humans arrived! They postulate, using computer simulations and correlations, that C02 is the culprit and then jump on that bandwagon..virtually ignoring the simplest, least cost, alternative..adapt using modern technology?

They can't even seem to make up their minds what is actually happening. http://www.businessandmedia.org/spec...FireandIce.pdf

[5010]

Link didn't work for me.

Anyone see this? Red faces at NASA over climate-change blunder

In the United States, the calendar year 1998 ranked as the hottest of them all – until someone checked the math. After a Toronto skeptic tipped NASA this month to one flaw in its climate calculations, the U.S. agency ordered a full data review. Days later, it put out a revised list of all-time hottest years. The Dust Bowl year of 1934 now ranks as hottest ever in the U.S. – not 1998.

Other sources:
Toronto blogger turns up NASA climate error

NASA weather error sparks global warming debate

NASA Revisions Create a Stir in The Blogosphere

NASA Weather Error Provokes Tempest in a Teapot
To make it even more juicy, no less august a figure than NASA's own James Hansen, the godfather of global warming science, was implicated in the foul-up.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I don't need any alternate method of reconstructing past temps because there are records and general evidence of past temperatures...which show temperatures and climate cycles have varied, obviously due to natural influences!

Are you listening to yourself? How do you think figures for past temperatures were acquired? Recorded temperatures only go back to around 1750s and doesn't necessary include temperatures from around the world either.

Quote by: xyzer Don't you get it, the climate alarmists have set out to prove their contentious premise by reconstructing past climate records to show that there is reason to suspect human influence in the latest cycle of climate change? Some convert available and proxy evidence into support for their original assumption(premise) that humans are responsible for climate change and can influence it by reducing their energy consumption? You are like a broken record and force me into the same tactic?

This is hilarious, I don't even know why I'm debating with you.
I'll ask again, do you have an alternative method to reconstruct past temperatures (just for you, I'll add this part as you seem to have problems understanding basic concepts) where written records aren't available?

[Separated Unity]

Quote by: Nathan Struth It definitely exists due to historical cycles of temperature increase. THe main question is if we're the ones who initiated it, or are accelerating it. and if we can actually stop it? My view is that it's a natural cycle and that we're accelerating it by 10% faster.

Now now, you can't necessarily say that it DEFINITELY exists. Keep in mind that while we do have evidence that could point to it, there is no absolute and undeniable truth. How can we really be sure that the climate changes are really entirely due to global warming? We humans have only tracked the weather for so long, and Earth has gone through plenty of hot spells as well as ice ages. Our planet is ever changing, and I honestly doubt that we could have such a major impact simply by mixing up and changing certain atoms and molecules. Of course, consider that we do impact the ozone layer. Does it not make sense that the Ozone molecules broken down could reform? Ozone is a triatomic molecule, made up of 3 oxygen atoms. Considering that they formed by themselves to begin with, wouldn't it seem that the oxygen could continue to reform in order to create more ozone? And even if not, with todays high and ever advancing technology, could we not, with some good funding... VERY good funding... produce man-made ozone? Nothing chemically altered, simply naturally induced ozone. The way I see it, this problem will more than likely resolve itself, and if not, it's a problem easily solved with enough effort.

[xyzer]

Here is another well reasoned discussion of the impact of a recently discovered anomaly in NASAs temperature measurements.(Data that was used in ?# of scientific studies and included in the well publicised news of climate doom?)
Notes in the Margin · Implications of NASA’s Climate Data Errors

It turns out that there was a warmer decade in the 1930s after all? The warmest year was apparently 1934 and not 1998 which was ballyhoo'd as definitive evidence that C02 increases were warming the climate to 'unprecedented heights'? NASA and the media seem reluctant to correct the record and try to reveal truth?..reveal its possible impact on some of these scientific studies, charts and graphs that have been held up a proof of certainty? Can it be that the suggested correlation between anthropogenic C02 increases and climate warming is not "certain"? That something else caused the cooling cycle during the 1950s and 60s?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is another well reasoned discussion of the impact of a recently discovered anomaly in NASAs temperature measurements.(Data that was used in ?# of scientific studies and included in the well publicised news of climate doom?) Notes in the Margin · Implications of NASA’s Climate Data Errors It turns out that there was a warmer decade in the 1930s after all? The warmest year was apparently 1934 and not 1998 which was ballyhoo'd as definitive evidence that C02 increases were warming the climate to 'unprecedented heights'? NASA and the media seem reluctant to correct the record and try to reveal truth?..reveal its possible impact on some of these scientific studies, charts and graphs that have been held up a proof of certainty? Can it be that the suggested correlation between anthropogenic C02 increases and climate warming is not "certain"? That something else caused the cooling cycle during the 1950s and 60s?

Allow me to quote a well known Global warming skeptic, the blogger himself who apparently worked out the error.

McIntyre has said he had fun discovering the flaws, but called the adjustment a "micro-change."

Source
Of course, when the US comes to represent the entire globe, we'll have a lot to answer for, but as it stands, even that critic himself that this made little difference in the grand scheme of things.

Btw, it's CO2, not C02.

[loser]

Man's impact on global deviations is miniscule compared to the natural forces that dwarf our meager manipulations.

What you are hearing is 'convenient lies', nothing more. Global warming is a joke but not a funny one. It is diverting atttention from real issues that are impacting our lives on earth, such as pollution and the destruction of natural balances and abilities. The results will be starvation and disease but, in the end, even this will be balanced out with the widespread destruction and death of mankind.

That will probably be a good thing, when all is said and done.

[xyzer]

Man's impact on global deviations is miniscule compared to the natural forces that dwarf our meager manipulations

Yay verily, loser!!!
One would think from listening to Gore that we ought to just stop breathing? :)

[xyzer]

Here is yet another study that casts doubt on relying too heavily on computer models in climate prediction and analysis??
CO2 Science

In discussing these embarrassing results, Wentz et al. correctly state that "the reason for the discrepancy between the observational data and the GCMs is not clear." They also rightly state that this dramatic difference between the real world of nature and the virtual world of climate modeling "has enormous impact," concluding that the questions raised by the discrepancy "are far from being settled." We agree. And until these "enormous impact questions" are settled, we wonder how anyone could conceivably think of acting upon the global energy policy prescriptions of the likes of Al Gore and James Hansen, who speak and write as if there was little more to do in the realm of climate-change prediction than a bit of fine-tuning.

[Separated Unity]

Quote by: loser Man's impact on global deviations is miniscule compared to the natural forces that dwarf our meager manipulations. What you are hearing is 'convenient lies', nothing more. Global warming is a joke but not a funny one. It is diverting atttention from real issues that are impacting our lives on earth, such as pollution and the destruction of natural balances and abilities.

So true. And when it's all considered, even if we were to intensely cut back on the gases we go tossing into the atmosphere, the same results would still be inevitable sooner or later. We should stop worrying about which molecules in the air are being affected, and start thinking about things that affect us directly. It's just higher priority, as loser said.

Then again, what do I know? I'm not Al Gore, who am I to talk about the environment?

[billybobama]

Quote by: Separated Unity So true. And when it's all considered, even if we were to intensely cut back on the gases we go tossing into the atmosphere, the same results would still be inevitable sooner or later. We should stop worrying about which molecules in the air are being affected, and start thinking about things that affect us directly. It's just higher priority, as loser said. Then again, what do I know? I'm not Al Gore, who am I to talk about the environment?

I very much agree with your last statement. You are not nearly as smart as Al Gore.

[rmnunez]

warmlist

[xyzer]

I didn't find my "hemaroids" on that list rm? I thought all that global warming crap was causing the bleeding?