Global Warming

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: TRIGGER One thing that you haven't mentioned is that in the past 50 or so years that there has been an increase in volcanic activity and forest fires. When mt Penatubo went up in the 80's it pumped more poluntants in to the atmosphere than human activity could in 100 years in apx. 4 days. Back fifty or so years ago we used to manage our forests cleaning out the dead trees and clearing the floors of tinder making forests more vunerable to fire and taking away plants that use co2 for food. The environmentalists stoped this, do you think that these natural occurances may have something to do with the rise in co2? Also since the US has drasticly reduced our emissions why would you look to the US to cut more emittions instead of going after the 3rd world countrys like the former soviet block countrys that havn't done anything about their emmissions. If you want to change the emissions then all the countrys need to get on the wagon not just the prosperious one's. We could drasticaly reduce our emissions by changing our production of power from coal, oil, and natural gas to nuclear. With 0 co2 emissions and a possability of going to electric heat instead of oil and natural gas. Of corse this may also help to lower our dependancy on oil imports.

Do you have any data to support your claims?

[TRIGGER]

Quote by: Pooeypants Do you have any data to support your claims?

As to what? If you mean about penatubo no I read something about it when the event happened which was about the same time that Hussan set the oil well fires in Kuate. As to auto emissions also an artical I read back in the 90's it said that auto emmissions were apx. 90% cleaner than 10 to 20 years earlier not sure on exact # but coservitivly speaking. As to anything else let me know?

[xyzer]

Here is a really exhaustive article on the perfidy and alarminsm about "climate change" followed by the press over the years! Please read it in its entirety and consider the conclusions. After you do, you can't help but wonder?
BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice

Conclusions:

What can one conclude from 110 years of conflicting climate coverage except that the weather changes and the media are just as capricious? Certainly, their record speaks for itself. Four separate and distinct climate theories targeted at a public taught to believe the news. Only all four versions of the truth can’t possibly be accurate. For ordinary Americans to judge the media’s version of current events about global warming, it is necessary to admit that journalists have misrepresented the story three other times. Yet no one in the media is owning up to that fact. Newspapers that pride themselves on correction policies for the smallest errors now find themselves facing a historical record that is enormous and unforgiving. It is time for the news media to admit a consistent failure to report this issue fairly or accurately, with due skepticism of scientific claims.

I repeat, it is not only the press that keep expressing certainty about that which is not proven but it is opportunists like Gore who join the parade.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Pooeypants I see your education is lacking, we will never use Carbon dating to elucidate the age of dinosaur fossils. Why? Because the half life of Carbon-14 is relatively low at 5700 years which is only good for dating back to 60000 years.

Prove it.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here is a really exhaustive article on the perfidy and alarminsm about "climate change" followed by the press over the years! Please read it in its entirety and consider the conclusions. After you do, you can't help but wonder? BMI Special Report -- Fire and Ice Conclusions: I repeat, it is not only the press that keep expressing certainty about that which is not proven but it is opportunists like Gore who join the parade.

Wait, you want me to take the word of a research assistant over that of established scientific organisations? Yeah, sure.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: kubedawg Prove it.

Prove what? That Carbon-14 has a half life of approx. 5700 years?

[xyzer]

I'm laughing! Whats a mere 65 million years to a true believer? No logical barrier to truth is recognized by the modern orthdoxy which insists it is right? eh Pooey?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer I'm laughing! Whats a mere 65 million years to a true believer? No logical barrier to truth is recognized by the modern orthdoxy which insists it is right? eh Pooey?

Let's see you find a credible scientific organisation that supports your stance. And please, no more anecdotes or attacks on Al Gore because no one here is using him for support. He isn't even a researcher, just a decent public speaker.

[xyzer]

Pooey..

Ever more the diversionist. No one has ever claimed that natural cycles don't exist or that we're not experiencing it and it's the change climate we're experiencing which cannot be explained by natural phenomena that has lead to the development of human induced Global warming model.

I'm not sure you comprehend my position. I have repeatedly agreed that we are in a warming trend. I have repeatedly mentioned that I believe there are climate cycles. I have repeatedly suggested that there is no certainty to the current orthodoxy that human caused emissions are a major factor in the current warming cycle. The studies themselves are replete with assumptions and computer iterations that IMNSHO are flawed.We can't even predict current weather conditions a week or so from now with absolute certainty..how in the hell can we do so with climate one hundred years hence?? I have pounded home(with examples) the scare tactics that the Press including opportunists like Gore(You will note his documentary made millions which you deny he might have shared in?) promote are speculative.

And yet you post this?

and it's the change climate we're experiencing which cannot be explained by natural phenomena that has lead to the development of human induced Global warming model.

You suggest that this human induced model is valid because we can't explain the naturally caused pehnomena as having a certain affect. Is that logical? We can't prove or demonstrate something so therefor we concoct a model with certain assumptions built in,that has to be correct? What we substitute for a model we don't agree with has to be correct because we feel the original model is incorrect?
I'm not diverting, I'm questioning the logic...I refer you to a recent primer on logic..."Logic Made Easy" by Deborah J. Bennett 2004...W.W. Norton company, London

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Pooey.. I'm not sure you comprehend my position. I have repeatedly agreed that we are in a warming trend. I have repeatedly mentioned that I believe there are climate cycles.

So do the proponents of Anthropogenic Global warming, so why bring it up unless you're suggesting they think otherwise?

Quote by: xyzer I have repeatedly suggested that there is no certainty to the current orthodoxy that human caused emissions are a major factor in the current warming cycle.

Which is why it's still being researched. What is unanimous amongst all respectable scientific organisations is that we have an affect.

Quote by: xyzer The studies themselves are replete with assumptions and computer iterations that IMNSHO are flawed.We can't even predict current weather conditions a week or so from now with absolute certainty..how in the hell can we do so with climate one hundred years hence??

This is a complete misnomer, weather prediction and climate prediction are not exactly the same thing. Considering how you claim to have a degree, I would've thought you'd known this and that, once more you're diverting attention. If you really don't know, then read here.

Quote by: xyzer I have pounded home(with examples) the scare tactics that the Press including opportunists like Gore(You will note his documentary made millions which you deny he might have shared in?) promote are speculative.

I don't know how much Al Gore earnt, but if you insist that he has then you must support that statement with the relevant material. Again, no one is using material from the press to support their position.

Quote by: xyzer And yet you post this? You suggest that this human induced model is valid because we can't explain the naturally caused pehnomena as having a certain affect. Is that logical? We can't prove or demonstrate something so therefor we concoct a model with certain assumptions built in,that has to be correct? What we substitute for a model we don't agree with has to be correct because we feel the original model is incorrect? I'm not diverting, I'm questioning the logic...I refer you to a recent primer on logic..."Logic Made Easy" by Deborah J. Bennett 2004...W.W. Norton company, London

If you have a model which can comprehensively explain the climate change we have been experiencing, then please present it. Better still, send it to one of the respectable scientific organisations researching this phenomena. Or you can continue making anecdotes.

[xyzer]

If you have a model which can comprehensively explain the climate change we have been experiencing, then please present it. Better still, send it to one of the respectable scientific organisations researching this phenomena. Or you can continue making anecdotes.

There you go again! Denying the reality of of a contra opinion of one who is skeptical and saying that your beliefs are right because I can't produce a model that supports my position. Is that logic?

Durn right I can't predict what's going to occur in the future? And I don't intend to. I'm pointing out what I think are the flaws in the models you seem to espouse! My model is the past evidence of the cyclic nature of climate..The idea that immediately curtailing human caused emissions is going to change climate cycles and "stop the oceans from rising" is flawed reasoning..It attempts to make certain that which isn't certain. In the process it earns money for opportunists and alarms the uninformed.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Pooeypants Prove what? That Carbon-14 has a half life of approx. 5700 years?

Quote by: kubedawg Quote by: Pooeypants I see your education is lacking, we will never use Carbon dating to elucidate the age of dinosaur fossils. Why? Because the half life of Carbon-14 is relatively low at 5700 years which is only good for dating back to 60000 years. Prove it.

Prove that carbon-14 is good for dating back to 60,000 years.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer There you go again! Denying the reality of of a contra opinion of one who is skeptical and saying that your beliefs are right because I can't produce a model that supports my position. Is that logic?

I am not denying anything. I am requesting that you give me a model or scientific paper which is supports your view. How else can I make a balanced judgment?

Quote by: xyzer Durn right I can't predict what's going to occur in the future? And I don't intend to. I'm pointing out what I think are the flaws in the models you seem to espouse! My model is the past evidence of the cyclic nature of climate..The idea that immediately curtailing human caused emissions is going to change climate cycles and "stop the oceans from rising" is flawed reasoning..It attempts to make certain that which isn't certain. In the process it earns money for opportunists and alarms the uninformed.

So you think the climatologists who study the phenomena does not take into the account of past climate cycles? That you are the one of few to notice this? Please show me where they have discounted this data in their models and papers.
Until then you're just spouting the same old rhetorical anecdotes.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: kubedawg Prove that carbon-14 is good for dating back to 60,000 years.

Define the word, "prove". In modern science, nothing is proven. If you want to know how the current limit was determined, may I refer you to this scientific paper. Basically, due to the low quantity of Carbon 14 and it's relatively short half life of around 5700 years, after 9 to 10 half lifes there are usually too low a quantity of C-14 to detect accurate.

[kubedawg]

Quote by: Pooeypants Define the word, "prove". In modern science, nothing is proven.

Thank you.

[xyzer]

Here are a couple of other references that add to the debate in question..

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works

ABC News: 'Schwarzenator' vs. Bush: Global Warming Debate Heats Up

If we can somehow infer certainty to this matter I haven/t seen any convincing evidence to buttress that contention?. There has been little contra evidence produced in the press which has the biggest audience. There has been no convincing proof tha human caused emissions are a major factor in the warming trend the earth has expericed since the last ice age? What Iv'e seen in the way of conclusions is usually qualified by the accompany language. Too much, "might", "could", "may" type stuff?

The first article answere Pooeys continual cry for some scientists who disagree with the human caused theory..here they are!

[Milton Bradley]

Quote by: xyzer If we can somehow infer certainty to this matter I haven/t seen any convincing evidence to buttress that contention?. There has been little contra evidence produced in the press which has the biggest audience. There has been no convincing proof tha human caused emissions are a major factor in the warming trend the earth has expericed since the last ice age? What Iv'e seen in the way of conclusions is usually qualified by the accompany language. Too much, "might", "could", "may" type stuff? The first article answere Pooeys continual cry for some scientists who disagree with the human caused theory..here they are!

I was talking about this the other day with some friends.


Anybody that knows anything about water heating, or cooling will know that the best way to transfer heat is through a liquid medium.


What I wonder is what is the effect of releasing all the water that we heat ( with our water heaters ) into the environment?


Seems logical to assume that the contributions should be significant.


I'd like to see a study comissioned to investigate just that contribution to the overall picture.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Here are a couple of other references that add to the debate in question.. U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works ABC News: 'Schwarzenator' vs. Bush: Global Warming Debate Heats Up If we can somehow infer certainty to this matter I haven/t seen any convincing evidence to buttress that contention?. There has been little contra evidence produced in the press which has the biggest audience. There has been no convincing proof tha human caused emissions are a major factor in the warming trend the earth has expericed since the last ice age? What Iv'e seen in the way of conclusions is usually qualified by the accompany language. Too much, "might", "could", "may" type stuff?

Do you ever read scientific papers? Do you ever go to the conclusions? What kind of language do they use? Do you often see absolutes being described?

Quote by: xyzer The first article answere Pooeys continual cry for some scientists who disagree with the human caused theory..here they are!

No, it doesn't. I am well aware that there individuals out there who are skeptics. I asked for a respectable scientific organisation. So what have you got?

[xyzer]

Pooey..you ask if I ever read scientific papers? Yes I do, and I have repeatedly pointed out the flaws in the models and the admitted impreciseness of the forecasts...

Earlier this year, a group of prominent scientists came forward to question the so-called “consensus” that the Earth faces a “climate emergency.” On April 6, 2006, 60 scientists wrote a letter to the Canadian Prime Minister asserting that the science is deteriorating from underneath global warming alarmists.

In August, Khabibullo Abdusamatov, a scientist who heads the space research sector for the Russian Academy of Sciences, predicted long-term global cooling may be on the horizon due to a projected decrease in the sun’s output. See: RIA Novosti - Russia - Russian scientist issues global cooling warning

There have also been recent findings in peer-reviewed literature over the last few years showing that the Antarctic is getting colder and the ice is growing and a new 2006 study in Geophysical Research Letters found that the sun was responsible for up to 50% of 20th-century warming. See: Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record

For gosh sakes Pooey read the sources and wake up! You seem oblivious to truth and contra opinion if it appears with your stilted mindset?

[xyzer]

Does this sound convincing or are you too far gone?

Paleoclimate scientist Bob Carter has noted that there is indeed a problem with global warming – it stopped in 1998. “According to official temperature records of the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the UK, the global average temperature did not increase between 1998-2005. “…this eight-year period of temperature stasis did coincide with society's continued power station and SUV-inspired pumping of yet more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere,” noted paleoclimate researcher and geologist Bob Carter of James Cook University in Australia in an April 2006 article titled “There is a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998.” See: Telegraph | Comment | There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

Here is anoother valid cause for skepticism...

Another bombshell to hit the global warming alarmists and their speculative climate modeling came in a September article in the Geophysical Research Letters which found that over 20% of the heat gained in the oceans since the mid-1950s was lost in just two years. The former climatologist for the state of Colorado, Roger Pielke, Sr., noted that the sudden cooling of the oceans “certainly indicates that the multi-decadal global climate models have serious issues with their ability to accurately simulate the response of the climate system to human- and natural-climate forcings.“ See: Climate Science: Roger Pielke Sr. Research Group Weblog » 2006 » September

And the truth is slowly being revealsed? To those who use logic and reason in opinion gathering,...that is?