Global Warming

[xyzer]

Ooops, another spear in the heart of Goreistic panic?

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets

Not every scientist is part of Al Gore's mythical "consensus." Scientists worried about a new ice age seek funding to better observe something bigger than your SUV — the sun.

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

How come this theory that the sun is the culprit has been overcome by CO2 panic?

Read it and wonder, are we really the cause of climate cycles? Wonder also if we can change the suns brightness by cutting our energy use?

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer Ooops, another spear in the heart of Goreistic panic? IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- The Sun Also Sets How come this theory that the sun is the culprit has been overcome by CO2 panic? Read it and wonder, are we really the cause of climate cycles? Wonder also if we can change the suns brightness by cutting our energy use?

The main thing that article emphasized is that if the solar theory guys are right and the CO2 theory guys are wrong, there will be virtually zero effect on global warming if we shut down every single mechanical device or process in the world today--that is, park all the cars and anything other motorized thing that moves, turn off all the lights, shut down all the factories, turn off all the heat, and unplug every appliance.

We could be dealing with significant cooling in the near future, however, and that will back up world temperatures quite significantly.

Which way do you want to gamble?

[ruiner]

Back in 1991, before Al Gore first shouted that the Earth was in the balance, the Danish Meteorological Institute released a study using data that went back centuries that showed that global temperatures closely tracked solar cycles.

It's bizzare that an article published in 2008 would talk about correlations made on data as it stood in 1991.

Solar data since then has diverged from global temperatures.

Global Warming FAQ - Sun and Climate Change
Sunspot data: ftp://ftp.ngdc.noaa.gov/STP/SOLAR_DA...ERS/YEARLY.PLT
global temperature data: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/ftpdata/tavegl.dat

I guess this might explain why they limit their period of study to pre-1991

[rmnunez]

I doubt it, the red and blue lines don't closely track each other, sometimes one is much higher or lower than the other, recently they seem to have diverged the most. The sunspot activity seems quite erratic with no clear pattern in the last 150 years.

[xyzer]

When we peruse your chart with this in mind, whats the answer ruiner?

Since sunspots are dark it might be expected that more sunspots lead to less solar radiation and a decreased solar constant. However, the surrounding areas are brighter and the overall effect is that more sunspots means a brighter sun. The variation caused by the sunspot cycle to solar output is relatively small, on the order of 0.1% of the solar constant (a peak-to-trough range of 1.3 W m-2 compared to 1366 W m-2 for the average solar constant)[3][4].

I don't know what the lead time is for cjhange to the earths climate as a result of changes in sunspot activity either? I would posit that simce they continually change in number and size with magnetic changes, that it would be hard to tell?

[rmnunez]

I've read that sunspot activity does influence the weather and there are oscillations and periods when it gets more intense, but that this entirely random.

[rmnunez]

The Chinese perspective:

Negotiations on a new treaty to fight global warming will fail if rich nations are not treated as "culprits" and developing countries as "victims," China's top climate envoy said. Wealthy nations are "the culprits, the countries who are responsible for the creation of this problem," Yu said. Developing countries are "victims ... (that) face the common task of achieving economic and social development so that their people can enjoy a better standard of living."

mail.com - the best personalized free web-based e-mail

[Loesoweekuff]

To me, it boils down to this: If global warming is a scam, then people will lose money. If it's NOT a scam, then the consequences could be more dire.
Imagine that you are a person who doesn't know all that much about global warming, and you know it. You have heard that it could be a problem, but you're no meteorologist; basically you know that some people say that it's just a scare and call it a "doomsday theory", while others say that it is a real problem and call for individuals to take action.
I'm speculating that this is the position of your average American. That's how I am, pretty much. Now, based on what I know, I can do one of two things...I can buy a car that doesn't use much gas and has good emissions etc...or, for the sake of image, I can buy an SUV or a hummer, not only running the risk of contributing to global warming, but help to speed depletion of oil (it'll run out today, tomorrow, or in two hundred years, either way, it'll run out)
In my opinion, very few people have the right to go right out and say that global warming IS NOT a problem, period, OR that it IS a problem, period. The only people who have the right to do that are people who are good scientists and people who have done a LOT of research, who question everything.
I don't know for SURE if global warming is or isn't a problem...neither does the average American (or maybe they think they know for sure). But if you take the stance that you don't really know for sure, as I do, then it seems more logical to take precautions against a possible threat than it is to shrug, say "whatever" and go burn another gallon of gas.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Loesoweekuff To me, it boils down to this: If global warming is a scam, then people will lose money. If it's NOT a scam, then the consequences could be more dire. Imagine that you are a person who doesn't know all that much about global warming, and you know it. You have heard that it could be a problem, but you're no meteorologist; basically you know that some people say that it's just a scare and call it a "doomsday theory", while others say that it is a real problem and call for individuals to take action. I'm speculating that this is the position of your average American. That's how I am, pretty much. Now, based on what I know, I can do one of two things...I can buy a car that doesn't use much gas and has good emissions etc...or, for the sake of image, I can buy an SUV or a hummer, not only running the risk of contributing to global warming, but help to speed depletion of oil (it'll run out today, tomorrow, or in two hundred years, either way, it'll run out) In my opinion, very few people have the right to go right out and say that global warming IS NOT a problem, period, OR that it IS a problem, period. The only people who have the right to do that are people who are good scientists and people who have done a LOT of research, who question everything. I don't know for SURE if global warming is or isn't a problem...neither does the average American (or maybe they think they know for sure). But if you take the stance that you don't really know for sure, as I do, then it seems more logical to take precautions against a possible threat than it is to shrug, say "whatever" and go burn another gallon of gas.

Better safe than sorry is a truly wise policy, but unfortunately, in this case the 'safe' could spell disaster to hundreds of millions of people or else it is simply lip service to assuage the guilt of the leftist religionists.

Use CFCs instead of the cheaper, more efficient incandescent bulb they say and save the planet. But already the train of the issue of disposing of the toxic waste in the CFCs is beginning to roll. Use hybrid and electric cars they say with no analysis of the energy offset from assembly line to junkyard.

Not a single member signed onto Kyoto have come close to meeting the 'mandatory standards of reduction of CO2', but the most recent world summit bravely increased those standards just the same as if talking the talk would make the difference. Meanwhile high paid scientists, movie stars waving their petition signs, and the mama of all environmental gurus, Al Gore himself, have not downsized their houses or their automobiles or reduced their energy consumption or parked their power boats, yachts, and private airplanes. Energy reduction is for the little people like us, not the important people like them. And they wonder why some of us think they aren't all that frightened about or committed to the doom and gloom scenario they paint.

Meanwhile the rest of us are saddled with expensive mandates that reduce our choices, freedoms, and perhaps, in a few cases, our quality of life. And hundreds of millions of people in the Third World will be sentenced to more generations of crushing poverty when they are not able to utilize their natural resources to prosper as all the rest of us have already done.

Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. But sometimes it isn't safety but rather it is utter folly they are suggesting.

[Loesoweekuff]

Better safe than sorry is a truly wise policy, but unfortunately, in this case the 'safe' could spell disaster to hundreds of millions of people or else it is simply lip service to assuage the guilt of the leftist religionists. Use CFCs instead of the cheaper, more efficient incandescent bulb they say and save the planet. But already the train of the issue of disposing of the toxic waste in the CFCs is beginning to roll. Use hybrid and electric cars they say with no analysis of the energy offset from assembly line to junkyard. Not a single member signed onto Kyoto have come close to meeting the 'mandatory standards of reduction of CO2', but the most recent world summit bravely increased those standards just the same as if talking the talk would make the difference. Meanwhile high paid scientists, movie stars waving their petition signs, and the mama of all environmental gurus, Al Gore himself, have not downsized their houses or their automobiles or reduced their energy consumption or parked their power boats, yachts, and private airplanes. Energy reduction is for the little people like us, not the important people like them. And they wonder why some of us think they aren't all that frightened about or committed to the doom and gloom scenario they paint. Meanwhile the rest of us are saddled with expensive mandates that reduce our choices, freedoms, and perhaps, in a few cases, our quality of life. And hundreds of millions of people in the Third World will be sentenced to more generations of crushing poverty when they are not able to utilize their natural resources to prosper as all the rest of us have already done. Sometimes it is better to be safe than sorry. But sometimes it isn't safety but rather it is utter folly they are suggesting.

If the poverty is partly a result of third world countries' inability to sell oil, then I assume the poverty will increase once the oil runs out. Also (I'm a bit unsure about the actual facts) the people in oil-selling countries who are the actual ones selling the oil, perhaps are not sharing their wealth with the poor who live in their countries, and their control over the oil industry merely gives them more power (again, speculation here, I'd have to look at the facts--although I do recall reading something along those lines).
Concerning the American quality of life--I think that we are one of the leaders in amount of CO2 emissions. Who are we to say we would suffer greatly by conserving natural resources? Who do we suffer more from--the "high paid scientists" or the leading figures in the oil business--who are far richer, far more powerful, and are far more capable of influencing government stance, media, and public opinion than the scientists and Al Gore are. They can pour huge amounts of money into campaign contributions, affecting who gets into power in the government. It is in their immediate financial interest to make sure that people buy gas--and that people buy cars that burn a lot of it. It doesn't affect MY "quality of life" to buy cheaper cars that burn less gas. I save money. I spend less on gas. By doing so, I leave more oil for our descendants to use.
The "energy offset from assembly line to junkyard" could well be a smaller price to pay than what we could potentially pay in the future--it's sort of like an investment. Even if you forget global warming, even if it isn't a problem at ALL, what will happen when the oil suddenly runs out? Are we really prepared for that? We rely on oil in so many ways it's not even funny. If it all disappeared at once, we wouldn't be able to use farm equipment, trucks to transport food, the list goes on and on. Even President Bush has said that our country is “addicted to oil”. Basically, there would be a huge economic collapse.

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: Loesoweekuff If the poverty is partly a result of third world countries' inability to sell oil, then I assume the poverty will increase once the oil runs out. Also (I'm a bit unsure about the actual facts) the people in oil-selling countries who are the actual ones selling the oil, perhaps are not sharing their wealth with the poor who live in their countries, and their control over the oil industry merely gives them more power (again, speculation here, I'd have to look at the facts--although I do recall reading something along those lines). Concerning the American quality of life--I think that we are one of the leaders in amount of CO2 emissions. Who are we to say we would suffer greatly by conserving natural resources? Who do we suffer more from--the "high paid scientists" or the leading figures in the oil business--who are far richer, far more powerful, and are far more capable of influencing government stance, media, and public opinion than the scientists and Al Gore are. They can pour huge amounts of money into campaign contributions, affecting who gets into power in the government. It is in their immediate financial interest to make sure that people buy gas--and that people buy cars that burn a lot of it. It doesn't affect MY "quality of life" to buy cheaper cars that burn less gas. I save money. I spend less on gas. By doing so, I leave more oil for our descendants to use. The "energy offset from assembly line to junkyard" could well be a smaller price to pay than what we could potentially pay in the future--it's sort of like an investment. Even if you forget global warming, even if it isn't a problem at ALL, what will happen when the oil suddenly runs out? Are we really prepared for that? We rely on oil in so many ways it's not even funny. If it all disappeared at once, we wouldn't be able to use farm equipment, trucks to transport food, the list goes on and on. Even President Bush has said that our country is “addicted to oil”. Basically, there would be a huge economic collapse.

I didn't say anything about anybody selling oil. I did say that developing countries should be able to use their natural resources as all developed countries did in order to become developed. But oil isn't going to run out before humankind has developed alternative energy sources that take its place. When butter was scarce, we invented margerine. When rubber was rationed, we developed better plastics and synthetic rubber. Humankind will adapt and adjust quite nicely when there is no longer sufficient oil to meet demand.

In order to reduce CO2 sufficiently to please the AGW religionists, we would have to revert almost to 19th century living standards. That means we turn off our air conditioners and heaters, park our cars, planes, power boats, busses, etc.,, turn off all the lights except for candle power, shut down all but the most essential factories which will need to learn how to run on manual labor again instead of mechanization. Everybody starts growing most of their own food again and we all learn again the pleasures of using block ice for refrigeration because everybody can't have a refrigerator.

Those of us who are not AGW religionists believe doing all that will have negligible effect on the climate, so imagine how little effect just increasing CAFE standards or utilizing more electric cars will have.

And so you alter your way of life, including some of the quality of life you enjoy, invest in expensive but largely inefficient solar energy, and forego most of the pleasures allowed by our electrified, industrialized society, and then find out it didn't make any difference. Meanwhile a bunch of scientists and environmental gurus got rich in the process, but I'm sure you will still feel a great deal of satisfaction knowing that you did the right thing.

Personally, I want to see those scientists and environmental gurus walk the walk before I will fully believe the talk.

[Century 25]

The root cause of human induced greenhouse warming is due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere since the industrial age began.

A stable and intelligent population would never commit the horrors our so-called "civilization" has wrought upon this little planet. It really all comes down to greed.

The corporations in the US shifted the production lines to places like Mexico.. China, Vietnam, etc.. where pollution laws are essentially non-existent. Capitalism demands constant growth. So, our population must grow.. and consume ever more of the "junk" that they produce. Is that a measure of the quality of life..? Do we need 305,000,000 (at least) people here..?

[xyzer]

Hmm? Great words?

The root cause of human induced greenhouse warming is due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere since the industrial age began

How come if we are spewing out more CO2 the climate is suddely cooling?
http://The root cause of human induc...rial age began

Could it just be that humans are not the primary influencer of climate?
Could it be that we don't have to penalize the developing nations because the sun has been increasing in intensity?

[Century 25]

Quote by: xyzer Could it just be that humans are not the primary influencer of climate? Could it be that we don't have to penalize the developing nations because the sun has been increasing in intensity? How come if we are spewing out more CO2 the climate is suddely cooling?

Who said that..? I said: " The root cause of human induced greenhouse warming is due to the increase of CO2 in our atmosphere since the industrial age began." Human induced..


As for month to month or year to year temp fluctuation.. that is "weather" data. Climate data re the global warming trend is compared over centuries, at least.. often much longer.

Visit here: Observations on Global Warming : Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution

And here: Keeling Curve - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Chris]

did any of you global warming deniers read this report?

I somehow don't think you have.

[xyzer]

Yes we did read it Chris. We note that it is for the year 2007? However, there has been an abrupt reversal of warming in the past few months! It has been colder than a 'well diggers behind' in the past couple of months...records have been set in the USA and other world areas?
Here is a report!DailyTech - Temperature Monitors Report Widescale Global Cooling

The past few months has set all sorts of cooling records...which to us so called deniers shows that climate change is influenced more by natural factors that anthropogenic CO2? Why? Because humans are still spewing our CO2 and thats what you 'proponents' say has been causing the warming trend?

Scientists quoted in a past DailyTech article link the cooling to reduced solar activity which they claim is a much larger driver of climate change than man-made greenhouse gases. The dramatic cooling seen in just 12 months time seems to bear that out. While the data doesn't itself disprove that carbon dioxide is acting to warm the planet, it does demonstrate clearly that more powerful factors are now cooling it.

Some facts?...

Over the past year, anecdotal evidence for a cooling planet has exploded. China has its coldest winter in 100 years. Baghdad sees its first snow in all recorded history. North America has the most snowcover in 50 years, with places like Wisconsin the highest since record-keeping began. Record levels of Antarctic sea ice, record cold in Minnesota, Texas, Florida, Mexico, Australia, Iran, Greece, South Africa, Greenland, Argentina, Chile -- the list goes on and on.

Another source? January 2008 - 4 sources say “globally cooler” in the past 12 months « Watts Up With That?

Still unanswered will this obvious anomaly set a new direction for world climate? Do other natural climate influencers overcome the dogma that humans can influence climate more that natural factors over which humans have no control?

[xyzer]

Just to add another view to the mix, here is another article that we deniers feel is warranted..
FOXNews.com - Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis? - Opinion

Now if the gullible will just believe they have been scammed?

[Foxfyre]

Quote by: xyzer Just to add another view to the mix, here is another article that we deniers feel is warranted.. FOXNews.com - Global Warming: Is It Really a Crisis? - Opinion Now if the gullible will just believe they have been scammed?

I'm just wondering how the AGW religionists are going to save face when their projections continue to prove to be terribly flawed.

[xyzer]

If our experience with human fallibility is a guide Foxfyre, I would posit that 'proponents' of anthropogenic alarmism will continue on their way without a change.
Was it Churchhill who said in effect...humans are constantly seeking truth. Every once in a while they stumble over it, pick themselves right back up and continue searching?

It bothers me that so many when faced with factual contra evidence, ignore it and keep on looking.
To add insult to their naivete they look askance at those of us who see the truth and call us deniers and as the Queen of Englands consort called us insane?

[xyzer]

For those interested in reality here is an event which the media in general has ignored...again proving that inspite of the evidence adherents are not interested in truth.
2008 International Conference on Climate Change * New York City * March 2-4, 2008Note even when Gore who asks $200,000 an appearance was asked to participate he refused?

So much for seeking scientific certainty? So much for seeking truth?