Global Warming

[Sonart]

.

Sure, Will... whatever you say.


.

[xyzer]

Sonart shake your head and clear it! Do you realize the fraudulence of the graphs you posted above? They show a fluctuation of less that 1 Degree ? In one case over a century? Is that alarming?
Add to this they don't show how and where in the atmosphere this variation was measured? Trophoshere? Stratosphere? Suirface Level? If it was the latter, who were the ones who measured it, where and how in the late 1800s and early 1900 ? Get real?
What it gets back to is you have been scammed and alarmed by the media? We are between Ice Ages(At one time Ice was two miles thick in North America) Sure it has been warming since the peak of the Ice Age(thats how the Great Lakes were formed?) Sure there are variations in the yearly temps along with the ability to measure them in a global sense? But the variations occur within a framework of 1 Degree? Can you go outside and then tell me that if it gets one degree colder tomorrow than it is today things are going to change drastically? Above all can you realisticall project what the temps will be 100 years from now? Both weather and climate vary.

[xyzer]

Here is the latest development in the fact over fiction argument I have repeatedly made..The measured facts just don't jive with the hype about what caused the period of global warming?
American Thinker Blog: NASA measures global temperatures

If human energy use is driving climate warming how come the climate is actually cooling as Humans are creating more C02?

From NASA...

In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans. "There has been a very slight cooling..."

I know, I know, the so called warming experts(proponents) will say the variation is because of El Nino, or La Nina but isn't that just a tacit admission that we humans are not really the major influence on climate?
It follows that carbon trade offs, and drastic energy reductions may not have an appreciable difference on ocean temps? That some factor like the sun(which we cannot control) is the infuencer?

[Will_00]

Please, Global Warming Supporters, look at this.

[xyzer]

Will.. the site is a real hoot! It certainly reflects the power of the press to distort an issue? Actual facts be damned, its the hysterical opinions that govern human thought

I'm amused that the current presidential candidates in the US rarely address the impact of the environmental lobby. A Lobby represented by demagogues like Gore who profit from fear tactics?

Thus we have damned an available energy source(virtually unlimited) oil !!! and refused to let people drill to exploit the vast quantities of oil and gas available even within our own borders? We have made ourselves dependent on foreign sources and increasing prices as our governments flail away at avoiding the use of these cheaper sources? Even though their effects are not the cause of climate change? What nonsense!

[Will_00]

I was stating the ridicularity and extent of what these Global Warming supporters go to.

[Sonart]

.

Ridicularity???

No, don't tell me... let me guess. You're a big fan of George W. Bush.


.

[Will_00]

Of course. I believe he is a Great President.

[Sonart]

.

LOLOL!! Not hardly. More like the exact opposite.

[Foxfyre]

well Sonart, the "worst president ever" agrees with YOU on global warming. So what does that say about YOU?

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Foxfyre well Sonart, the "worst president ever" agrees with YOU on global warming. So what does that say about YOU?

It says what the hell took him so long? Oh wait, that's right... his and Cheney's fealty to their beloved 'Awl Bidness' and conservative opposition to government regulation. Partisan politics placed before the nation's - and the world's - security.

And it asks, if he agrees with me that anthropogenic global warming is a serious problem, what does he plan to do about it?

As to Bush's record, with his approval rating now below 30%, I doubt there's anything he can do to restore his legacy. 28% is 6 pts below Jimmy Carter's end-of-presidency approval, and only 4% above Richard Nixon's worst ever end-of-presidency job approval.

Here... read why someone who voted for Bush -- twice -- agrees.

"I was wrong to have voted for George W. Bush. I believe George W. Bush is unarguably the worst two-term President in the history of the country. Worse than Grant. A case can be made he's the worst president, period. I reached the conclusion he's either grossly incompetent, or a hand puppet for a gaggle of detached theorists with their own private view of how the world works. Or both." -- Doug McIntyre

.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Sonart . LOLOL!! Not hardly. More like the exact opposite.

Please keep such blatant satire out of these threads. It's pulling the debate away from the main point...

[Century 25]

Quote by: Will_00 Of course. I believe he is a Great President.

He's just a prince of a fellow. He is held in such high esteem by the rest of the world.. maybe he should be a king.. King George.. it has a certain ring to it..

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: Pooeypants Please keep such blatant satire out of these threads. It's pulling the debate away from the main point...

What debate would that be, Pooey? Xyzer ignoring the evidence with his unending circular questions? Or Will's exasperation that we could possibly take the word of every legitimate scientific research institution on earth over that of Glen Beck?


.

[xyzer]

Why the long diatribe about how terrible Bush is and then that you agree with him about climate? Surely you jest. Oh yes in the some mind logical reasoning is avoided. Ad hominem drivel is substitute?

By the way Sonart, you and Pooey, the assumed experts on climate change, have never answered my question. Why if NASA Satellite measurements confirm that the globe has cooled slightly in the past decade as anthropogenic CO2 is increasing do you continue to believe that CO2 is the prime influencer in climate? Doesn't it occur to you that something else is much more of a climate driver than human energy consumption. I've given you references that confirm it?

Does it make sense to divert resources, possibly harm some economies, by increased spending for solutions that involve cutting human energy consumption? Doesn't it make more sense to develop the carbon based resources we have in Alaska and elsewhere in the US and its envrons.? Isn't it more sensible we look to nuclear and hydrogen resources as a solutiion to reducing the pollution? We in the USA and many other more productive societies have become too depemdent on coal and oil to cut their use.

While you are at it tell us how we are going to inflluence the suns changing brilliance, heating of the oceans,etc.?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer By the way Sonart, you and Pooey, the assumed experts on climate change, have never answered my question.

I have to stop you right there,[/quote]I have never claimed to be an expert. Ever. I have never used my own opinion as a driver behind my arguments.

Quote by: xyzer Why if NASA Satellite measurements confirm that the globe has cooled slightly in the past decade as anthropogenic CO2 is increasing do you continue to believe that CO2 is the prime influencer in climate? Doesn't it occur to you that something else is much more of a climate driver than human energy consumption. I've given you references that confirm it?

I've been away from these forums for a long time so you'll have to refer me to those findings. However, I would like to say that you're misconstruing my point of view and drawing a flawed picture. I have never claimed that CO2 is a prime influence of climate, never ever, ever, ever. It is a significant component in atmospheric thermal retention but it isn't the prime influence.

Quote by: xyzer Does it make sense to divert resources, possibly harm some economies, by increased spending for solutions that involve cutting human energy consumption? Doesn't it make more sense to develop the carbon based resources we have in Alaska and elsewhere in the US and its envrons.? Isn't it more sensible we look to nuclear and hydrogen resources as a solutiion to reducing the pollution? We in the USA and many other more productive societies have become too depemdent on coal and oil to cut their use. While you are at it tell us how we are going to inflluence the suns changing brilliance, heating of the oceans,etc.?

Aside from the strawmans, I'd like to say that I've only ever suggested that we take action on energy cuts that would save money, such as insulating your house and switching off electrics that are not needed...basically cutting down on our waste. Sure, we need some investment at first to make these changes but they are necessary and beneficial even if climate change (specifically global warming) isn't affected by humans. Are you telling me that it's wrong to tell people to switch to more efficient lighting so that they waste less energy and save more on their energy bill?
I am also a strong supporter of nuclear power, be it fission or the long awaited fusion.

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: Sonart .What debate would that be, Pooey? Xyzer ignoring the evidence with his unending circular questions? Or Will's exasperation that we could possibly take the word of every legitimate scientific research institution on earth over that of Glen Beck?

It doesn't matter, this is still in the debate's section, please act accordingly.

[Sonart]

.

Likewise, Xyzer, I have never claimed to be either an expert or a scientist. I've simply pass on what the experts and scientists have been telling us on the matter for some time.

As to your question, once again, I've answered it... repeatedly.

Here...

Here...

and here...

And ONE MORE TIME. The record shows that the global climate constantly fluctuates within a general range of temperatures. The most rythmic of these fluctuations seem to correspond to a variety of solar cycles... the 11 year sunspost cycle being one. I've shown you a graph. There also appears to be a 70-80 year cycle that appears in the global climate record.

Within the dramatic 200 rise in global temperatures... the 'Hockey Stick', these cycles are still at work. Except instead of rising and falling as they have done historically...

WWWWW

...they cycles now look like stair-steps, rising sharply, then leveling off, rising sharply, then leveling off.

So the question to ask yourself, Xyzer, in examining your own question...

"Why if NASA Satellite measurements confirm that the globe has cooled slightly in the past decade as anthropogenic CO2 is increasing do you continue to believe that CO2 is the prime influencer in climate?"

...is why haven't temperatures cooled dramatically instead of only slightly, as historic fluctuations suggest they should?

Quote by: Pooeypants It doesn't matter, this is still in the debate's section, please act accordingly.

This will be about the 4th or 5th time I've answered this question for Xyzer. If he asks it again, would you kindly do your job as moderator, inform him that his question has been answered, and that... if he intends to debate in good faith ...to move on.

.

[xyzer]

Welcome back to the discussion Pooey. Lets add some fuel to the fire..Bloomberg.com: Worldwide

You will notice that the IPCC and others are begining to draw back from the doom and gloom predictions.. I have repeatedly pointed out the cooling trend that is occuring..Actual satellite measurement has pointed out that something else is causing temmperature cooling while carbon based energy production is increasing?
From the reference..

Average temperatures in areas such as California and France may drop over the next 10 years, influenced by colder flows in the North Atlantic, said a report today by the institution based in Kiel, Germany. Temperatures worldwide may stabilize in the period.

Now at least we have a reluctant admission that there is variability even though anthropogenic CO2 in increasing? We are in and will continue to be in a period of cooling. Lets hark back to the 1960/70s cooling that also occurred while anthropogenic CO2 was increasing? Does it also show that something more powerful that CO2 content in the atmosphere is more important in climate change?
We are still warned however,

Global temperatures can't rise by more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 Fahrenheit) without risking the worst effects of climate change, according to the European Union. A scenario to stay below that limit suggests that CO2 levels must be stabilized between 350 and to 400 parts per million.

Global temps have increased(WITH VARIATIONS) less than 1 degree C in over a century. And we still don't know what the ideal temp is? We do know that global temperature prioxies indicate vast changes in global temps over the millennia. New York was once covered with 50 feet of Ice?
Such changes well before humans entered the scene have resulted in the evolution and disappearance of countless species which indicates species either adapt to natural change or perish!

We are warned that..

A scenario to stay below that limit suggests that CO2 levels must be stabilized between 350 and to 400 parts per million.

But we know that humans contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is something less than 1%. So we are led to believe that if we undertake the mammoth task of cutting energy use our fractional input will have an effect? Surely these people jest?

[Pooeypants]

Quote by: xyzer Welcome back to the discussion Pooey. Lets add some fuel to the fire..Bloomberg.com: Worldwide You will notice that the IPCC and others are begining to draw back from the doom and gloom predictions.

Actually, the IPCC give very conservative estimation based on the data from sources all over the world. The only doom and gloom predictions are from you, who claim that we'll have catastrophe if you try to be more energy efficient.

Quote by: xyzer I have repeatedly pointed out the cooling trend that is occuring..Actual satellite measurement has pointed out that something else is causing temmperature cooling while carbon based energy production is increasing?

Do you not read the titles of your articles? It says and I quote;

Ocean Cooling to Briefly Halt Global Warming, Researchers Say

And within the article itself

``Those natural climate variations could be stronger than the global-warming trend over the next 10-year period,'' Wood said in an interview. ``Without knowing that, you might erroneously think there's no global warming going on.'' The Leibniz study, co-written by Noel Keenlyside, a research scientist at the institute, will be published in the May 1 issue of the journal Nature. ``If we don't experience warming over the next 10 years, it doesn't mean that greenhouse-gas warming is not with us,'' Keenlyside said in an interview. ``There can be natural fluctuations that may mask climate change in the short term.''

Your source

Quote by: xyzer Now at least we have a reluctant admission that there is variability even though anthropogenic CO2 in increasing? We are in and will continue to be in a period of cooling. Lets hark back to the 1960/70s cooling that also occurred while anthropogenic CO2 was increasing? Does it also show that something more powerful that CO2 content in the atmosphere is more important in climate change? We are still warned however,

Again, you fail to acknowledge the fact that no one has ever claimed CO2 is most powerful factor, in fact, we've said before that it contributes 9 to 26% of thermal retention in the atmosphere. Further more, we've explained the apparent cooling seen in the 1960s or have you forgotten already? Do I need to refer you back to about half a dozen posts in this thread along that explains it?

Quote by: xyzer Global temps have increased(WITH VARIATIONS) less than 1 degree C in over a century. And we still don't know what the ideal temp is? We do know that global temperature prioxies indicate vast changes in global temps over the millennia. New York was once covered with 50 feet of Ice? Such changes well before humans entered the scene have resulted in the evolution and disappearance of countless species which indicates species either adapt to natural change or perish!

Yes, but the rate of such changes were over many millennias and not within a century (excluding big geological events).

Quote by: xyzer We are warned that.. But we know that humans contribution to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is something less than 1%. So we are led to believe that if we undertake the mammoth task of cutting energy use our fractional input will have an effect? Surely these people jest?

No, you're lying again, we've caused an increase of roughly 30% in CO2 levels over the past 2 centuries. Where did you get this less than 1% figure from? Plucked it out of the air?
Xyzer, don't you get tired of repeating the same tired arguments? Or do you suffer from a monthly amnesia? It would explain why you'd bring up the same thing every month, only to be refuted time and time again.