Global Warming, the most believable BS ever told

[wolfstrike]

i challenge you to meet an older person who doesn't think it's either hotter or colder then it was in the past.

the person who came up with this global warming crap was a genius, and it's all going to pull big bucks.


the last time i visited my grandma she said it never got so hot before at her house, i remember when i was a kid it hit 116.

my father says California never got so cold , i remember freezing my ass off.


some guy i knew had a plant that was suppose to blossom in january , because it did in feburary, he said it was global warming

:D

[miami mike]

It took three generations of scientists to prove that cigarettes cause cancer.

"Global warming" will end up a similar situation.....

Keep venting.....

Your kids will thank you,

[skrewt]

Originally posted by miami mike
It took three generations of scientists to prove that cigarettes cause cancer.

"Global warming" will end up a similar situation.....

Keep venting.....

Your kids will thank you,


Nice try, but cigarettes do not "cause" cancer.
They can act as a catalyst to someone who is already predisposed to cancer, but they do not cause it.
The only predominant disease caused by smoking is emphysema.
If cigarettes caused cancer I wouldn't have personally known at least 10 people who smoked for 60+ years and never got cancer.
Not saying it's good for you, just clarifying the facts.

BTW: Until they can acurately tell me what the temperature is going to be next week, I'll refrain from believing that they can tell me what the temperature will be next decade.

[MikeJ]

Hotter or colder in the past? How can one tell? Most people don't remember what they ate for dinner last week or who won a major sport event last year.

OK, I'm a grandpa and if I remember correctly, we had more snow when I was a kid than we have had in the last few years, and, it was colder way back in the 70's, if I remember correctly.

So what does that prove? Absolutely nothing. Only that over a very brief period of time, I have noticed a difference in two periods, the past and today. Proof of nothing.

Now the glaciers that have been in areas of the world for hundreds, or thousands of years are all retreating. Some so fast they can measure daily changes. Now, that proves something.

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/gallery/retreating.html[/url]

http://nsidc.org/glaciers/questions/climate.html



[Edited by MikeJ on 03-05-2006 at 09:38 AM]

[RoBoTeq]

Well lets see now; we had a mini ice age during the Medieval period up until about 400 years ago when things started heating up. That was about 200 years before the industrial revolution.

The ice age prior to that one was in decline just about the time man made an appearance on the earth. So...what caused the global warming that ended the last big ice age if man was not involved? What caused the earth to cool for a thousand years in the past two millenium? Why did the mini ice age of the Medieval period stop short and begin to become another global warming trend?

The point is that we have a lot more accurate questions then we do answers. The earth has experienced cooling and warming periods as far as we can tell, since its inception. Yet, some of us think we mere mortals are so damned important that we are causing "this" global warming cycle.

We are not masters of the universe. We are pissants grasping onto one of billions of tiny balls that are whizzing through a vast arena of what we cannot comprehend. So we must make up reasons to justify our being. Why are we never the good guys in this saga?

[refrigeration mafia]

Gloabl warming is good for the HVAC trade. You can sell more air conditioners when it's hotter outside. It won't be so good for the coastal areas which will see thier shoreline disappear as the ocean levels rise.

[wolfstrike]

>>>>>>>>
It won't be so good for the coastal areas which will see thier shoreline disappear as the ocean levels rise.
>>>>>>>>

that's only if the Loch Ness monster doesn't get to them first!

:D

[wolfstrike]

remember when they used to tell us crap about the rainforest like "an area the size of Texas is burned down every day"


well SHT! it's been 20 years!

what's 20 years, times, 365, times, the area of Texas?


:D

[Carnak]

I live on the water, my living room is 6 feet above sea level. I will post when the ice caps melt and my floor is wet.

[acmanko]

Bush is doing all he can to fight global warming , and he's making his oil buddies rich while doing it.

[wolfstrike]

>>>>>>>>>>>Bush is doing all he can to fight global warming , and he's making his oil buddies rich while doing it.
>>>>>>>>>>>


good!

if i were President, i would switch Bush and his oil buddies over to getting rich off of hydrogen , allot of problem would be solved wouldn't it.


of course that's not going to happen anytime soon because all we hear is political sayings and what happens in the real world is a different subject.

[bootlen]

Global warming? It is indeed a joke.

How long have we been documenting temps? Less than 100 years? All you knuckleheads who believe in this stuff are TYPICALLY the same who believe in an "old earth". What is a measley 100 years out of what, 200 million? How do you know it's not cyclical...say, every 200 years?

The GW argument holds not water.

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
The ice age prior to that one was in decline just about the time man made an appearance on the earth. So...what caused the global warming that ended the last big ice age if man was not involved?

Volcanos...Lots of them.

[oloenneker]

Originally posted by refrigeration mafia
It won't be so good for the coastal areas which will see thier shoreline disappear as the ocean levels rise.

Well, I guess it's just tough tits for those who build houses on the waters edge.... Global warming, Tsunamis, Hurricanes, Bluff erosion etc... thats the price ya pay for the privedlege...

[bootlen]

Originally posted by oloenneker

Originally posted by RoBoTeq
The ice age prior to that one was in decline just about the time man made an appearance on the earth. So...what caused the global warming that ended the last big ice age if man was not involved?

Volcanos...Lots of them.

You...you mean it was NATURAL?! Imagine that! NAture causing global warming. Who'd a thunk?

[bootlen]

Originally posted by Carnak
I live on the water, my living room is 6 feet above sea level. I will post when the ice caps melt and my floor is wet.

Carny, do you have any tides there? I find tides a very interesting phenomenon. We have 7 foot tides here but I have heard about 50 foot tides, I think in Nova Scotia. That blows me away.

[Carnak]

Not much of a tide boot maybe 18 inches tops. No big land mass for the water to build up against, it goes around us.

A lot of canals here and if they build up a sea wall on both sides, the wind and storms can drive the water up high analogous to the Bay of Fundy or Katrina did on the gulf coast. The water has no where to go but up.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by Carnak
Not much of a tide boot maybe 18 inches tops. No big land mass for the water to build up against, it goes around us.

A lot of canals here and if they build up a sea wall on both sides, the wind and storms can drive the water up high analogous to the Bay of Fundy or Katrina did on the gulf coast. The water has no where to go but up.



Very interesting.

Hehe. The lakes in west TX rise and drop more than that with the weather. :)

[RoBoTeq]

The Caymans are essentially peaks of underwater mountains. There is no continental shelf to give a gradual incline for tidal waters to increase on. The entire Carribean Sea has to rise for the water around Cayman to rise.

[Carnak]

Ivan at Cat 5 put the water up about 10 feet here. Katrina, a weaker Cat 4 storm when she hit the gulf coast must have 'pushed' water up close to 30 feet on the continental shelf especially in say Mobile.

Wilma had the lowest recorded pressure of the Atlantic storms. I played around with the numbers and the rise in sea level just due to a low pressure would have been 4 feet. Then you have the wind pushing up the water on top of that.

[chillbilly]

Cigarettes don't cause cancer? Why does big tobacco print otherwise on the zillions of packs of cigarettes they distribute? Because some judge made em'?
Nah, their scientists know what cigarettes do just as scientists see the overall effects of global warming.
You cannot decide that there is no such thing as global warming because you freeze you a$$ off at times.
I would think it's a bit more complicated than that.

[Carnak]

Not arguing the greenhouse effect that is obvious - all the CO2 removed from the atmosphere in a process longer than the 6,000 or so years extrapolated from Genesis, is getting all released to the atmosphere in a time span of a little over 100 years.

I just have not noticed the rising sea levels yet. Maybe it is going to be as drastic a change as in "The Day After Tomorrow", but I will let you know when my feet get wet.

They way weather works is weird. A lot of major European Cities are closer to the North Pole than where I grew up, yet they have much milder winters.

I think Greenland used to be a little greener at one time too.

[RoBoTeq]

It is a fact that the earth has been experiencing global warming for the past 400 or so years. What is not a fact is whether or not mankind has much of an affect on this naturally occuring process.

My parents have a condo with their porch literally 8 feet from a bay that is directly connected to the Atlantic Ocean coming in and going out. In the 26 years they have lived there the water level has not changed overall. The water is also not getting any higher to the dock, so there is not a silting that is keeping the water depth the same even thought the level is rising...the water level is simply not rising.

Now, I have read that the ocean levels have risen over the past 200 years and I do believe this to be true. Again, I don't believe that man has anything to do with this process simply because it has occured before and seems to be a normal cycle.

[tonys]

I think the 'science' is a little over the minds of wolfstrike and boots, among others (skrewed).

The Global Warming trend is not exclusive to ambient air and ocean temp monitoring (yes - 100 or so years), nor the temperature that you observe in your backyards (talk about your simplifications...)

It has more to do with a system analysis.
Ice coverage, ocean levels, migrating patterns of birds, whales, permafrost depth, sun spots, etc. etc. etc.
This is a subject for continued study - but, the oil-industry and the SUV lovin' folks on this board would rather 'wait it out' until the proof is the proof. right?

Someone can 'prove' it is impossible that a fat man can fly around in one night and deliver toys through every chimney in the world, and some people would STILL say you're wrong.


btw - Boots is in that 'elite group of minds' that buys (100%) into the 'scripture' stuff, that says the earth is a mere 5,000 years old...so, that speaks for itself.

(I'm sure Boots will correct me and quote the not-so-specific, convoluted section that says otherwise)

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
I think the 'science' is a little over the minds of wolfstrike and boots, among others (skrewed).

The Global Warming trend is not exclusive to ambient air and ocean temp monitoring (yes - 100 or so years), nor the temperature that you observe in your backyards (talk about your simplifications...)

It has more to do with a system analysis.
Ice coverage, ocean levels, migrating patterns of birds, whales, permafrost depth, sun spots, etc. etc. etc.
This is a subject for continued study - but, the oil-industry and the SUV lovin' folks on this board would rather 'wait it out' until the proof is the proof. right?

Someone can 'prove' it is impossible that a fat man can fly around in one night and deliver toys through every chimney in the world, and some people would STILL say you're wrong.


btw - Boots is in that 'elite group of minds' that buys (100%) into the 'scripture' stuff, that says the earth is a mere 5,000 years old...so, that speaks for itself.

(I'm sure Boots will correct me and quote the not-so-specific, convoluted section that says otherwise)

Thanks for referencing Santa. When kids question how a fat man fits down a chimney, parents make little changes to the tale to make it all fit...much like GW freaks do for GW theories. But keep it up...it gives us something to laugh about.

The point of it all is that man thinks himself to be of enough import to change things of much larger proportions than himself. Reminds me of a flea crawling up the rear leg of an elephant with rape on his mind.

Please. Continue.

[tonys]

why do you continue to bring up 'rape'...what's on YOUR mind lately, boots.

seen some bad movies?

...maybe time to visit the confession booth at your local Catholic-Tribe.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
why do you continue to bring up 'rape'...what's on YOUR mind lately, boots.


Didn't realize I was. Could BE something Freudian goin' on. Where else have I persisted?

[tonys]

I believe it was back in that Abortion thread (1 or 2 times).

[bootlen]

Originally posted by tonys
I believe it was back in that Abortion thread (1 or 2 times).


Actually mentioned it once in contextual sense, not off-the-cuff. If that makes you think I have a hidden agenda concerning rape, then I submit that YOU have some hidden agenda.

[tonys]

nothing hidden.
no time for that.


what ever happend to your partner-in-crime James?

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by bootlen
Global warming? It is indeed a joke.

How long have we been documenting temps? Less than 100 years? All you knuckleheads who believe in this stuff are TYPICALLY the same who believe in an "old earth". What is a measley 100 years out of what, 200 million? How do you know it's not cyclical...say, every 200 years?

The GW argument holds not water.

Hehe, thanks for making me laugh. Either you're a clever troll or seriously misguided. Hopefully the former. Measuring temperatures less than 100 years! ROTFLMAO. They've been taking temperature measurements in the UK since 1659 if not earlier:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

As for cyclical variations, there's several tens of thousands of years of data from the ice sheets in antarctica.

Earth only 200 million years old! ROTFLMAO.

[tonys]

newbie - boots is a LOT of things, but he is no troll.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by pyropaul

Originally posted by bootlen
Global warming? It is indeed a joke.

How long have we been documenting temps? Less than 100 years? All you knuckleheads who believe in this stuff are TYPICALLY the same who believe in an "old earth". What is a measley 100 years out of what, 200 million? How do you know it's not cyclical...say, every 200 years?

The GW argument holds not water.

Hehe, thanks for making me laugh. Either you're a clever troll or seriously misguided. Hopefully the former. Measuring temperatures less than 100 years! ROTFLMAO. They've been taking temperature measurements in the UK since 1659 if not earlier:
http://www.metoffice.com/research/hadleycentre/obsdata/cet.html

As for cyclical variations, there's several tens of thousands of years of data from the ice sheets in antarctica.

Earth only 200 million years old! ROTFLMAO.



I don't claim to be a scientist or a student of science so I have to acquiesce to your statement of how long we have been recording temps. But that doesn't change a thing. A hundred years or a thousand year. Temp changes have not been significant enough to create the panic in your voice.

Might be a troll? For a guy with "so many posts", you should know better.

Hey! You aren't geer's reader, are you?

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by bootlen

I don't claim to be a scientist or a student of science so I have to acquiesce to your statement of how long we have been recording temps. But that doesn't change a thing. A hundred years or a thousand year. Temp changes have not been significant enough to create the panic in your voice.

Might be a troll? For a guy with "so many posts", you should know better.

Hey! You aren't geer's reader, are you? [/B]

Panic in my voice? Who's panicing? Certainly not me. Whether global warming is man-made or not, it doesn't really matter. The climate is changing (as it has in the past, both getting warmer and colder) and so we have to adapt to that change. It's open to debate as to whether we can change the rate of change or not. I personally believe that no matter what we do to reduce carbon emissions, inevitably all the stored carbon in the form of fossil fuels will be released into the atmosphere. This will either happen slowly or quickly but there's no doubt we'll burn every last barrel of oil and every last ton of coal. I think our efforts would be better spent on preparing for the changes that will be coming rather than arguing about if they're going to happen or how we can slow them down. There have been episodes in the past with quite rapid change (some of which may have caused mass-extinctions) and so we better be ready to react to the changes. I certainly wouldn't plan on building any property at sea level in the near future.

As for you being a troll or not, the classical usenet definition of a troll is someone who deliberately posts something in order to get a reaction - especially when that post contains statements which are controversial. Some troll posts are the work of genious since they have all the right ingredients to cause the desired reaction. Of course, responding to trolls is a big no-no but can be fun :)

By the way, I live in the Great White North and am enjoying the fact that 10 of the last 13 years have been the warmest on record (though the increasing number of smog days in the summer is not so good) and have really enjoyed having a mild winter. Buggers up the skiing though.

Oh yes, I have no idea what a geer's reader is.

[tonys]

thanks for laying the ground rules.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by pyropaul

Originally posted by bootlen

I don't claim to be a scientist or a student of science so I have to acquiesce to your statement of how long we have been recording temps. But that doesn't change a thing. A hundred years or a thousand year. Temp changes have not been significant enough to create the panic in your voice.

Might be a troll? For a guy with "so many posts", you should know better.

Hey! You aren't geer's reader, are you?

Panic in my voice? Who's panicing? Certainly not me. Whether global warming is man-made or not, it doesn't really matter. The climate is changing (as it has in the past, both getting warmer and colder) and so we have to adapt to that change. It's open to debate as to whether we can change the rate of change or not. I personally believe that no matter what we do to reduce carbon emissions, inevitably all the stored carbon in the form of fossil fuels will be released into the atmosphere. This will either happen slowly or quickly but there's no doubt we'll burn every last barrel of oil and every last ton of coal. I think our efforts would be better spent on preparing for the changes that will be coming rather than arguing about if they're going to happen or how we can slow them down. There have been episodes in the past with quite rapid change (some of which may have caused mass-extinctions) and so we better be ready to react to the changes. I certainly wouldn't plan on building any property at sea level in the near future.

As for you being a troll or not, the classical usenet definition of a troll is someone who deliberately posts something in order to get a reaction - especially when that post contains statements which are controversial. Some troll posts are the work of genious since they have all the right ingredients to cause the desired reaction. Of course, responding to trolls is a big no-no but can be fun :)

By the way, I live in the Great White North and am enjoying the fact that 10 of the last 13 years have been the warmest on record (though the increasing number of smog days in the summer is not so good) and have really enjoyed having a mild winter. Buggers up the skiing though.

Oh yes, I have no idea what a geer's reader is. [/B]

:D Fair enough. BTW, I agree. If GW is fact and not fiction, it is to be, with or without our help. That is my point and if I read you correctly, it is yours as well.

I post what I believe to be true, no matter how people react. Some can deal with truth, some cannot. The ones who take offense at my posts are the ones who cannot handle teh truth.

Sorry about the skiing but I ain't walking. ;)

Hang around long enough and you'll know what geer's reader is. First you need to know a little about geer. I imagine he'll show up here shortly.

[RoBoTeq]

There is no doubt that winters have been warmer. I remember a lot more snow when I was a kid. However; this is a warming trend that has been going on for hundreds of years, not just since man has polluted the air.

Don't get me wrong; I believe we should clean up our act substantially. It's just not healthy for us to be peeing in our breathing pool the way we do.

I suggest the first thing we do is get rid of all of the aromatic candles, incences and plug ins that the pansy Chicken Littles all love so much while they complain about air pollution.

[acmanko]

I believe we should be realists and take what we get when we get it. If it gets hotter, we just evolve or adapt and go on with life.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by acmanko
I believe we should be realists and take what we get when we get it. If it gets hotter, we just evolve or adapt and go on with life.

OHHHHHHH...this is gonna hurt!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I agree.

[bootlen]

Originally posted by RoBoTeq

Originally posted by acmanko
I believe we should be realists and take what we get when we get it. If it gets hotter, we just evolve or adapt and go on with life.

OHHHHHHH...this is gonna hurt!
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
I agree.

Move over.:(

[evildberg]

I have a solution............
Everyone quits breathing and farting, that should put an end to global warming right?

[skrewt]

Originally posted by evildberg
I have a solution............
Everyone quits breathing and farting, that should put an end to global warming right?

I have a better solution.
Turn off all air conditioning so that we stop pumping heat from inside the buildings and warming up the world.

[RoBoTeq]

Originally posted by skrewt

Originally posted by evildberg
I have a solution............
Everyone quits breathing and farting, that should put an end to global warming right?

I have a better solution.
Turn off all air conditioning so that we stop pumping heat from inside the buildings and warming up the world.

Damn!!! I had to think about this for a minute :D

[crozzy]

I'm not sure what people refer to global warming is exactly. People interpret it many different ways. As for changing of weather. I’m totally convinced its due to the changing of the climatology. Through-out the earths history you can argue many things, with the Ice age and the Little Ice and massive weather changes. Many Biological facts have to be considered. What I know is, the ozone layer on the Belt is depleting and is warming the North Atlantic current substantially. That is a fact, proven my many Climatologist, who have observed the North Atlantic current temp for years and years have proven that the current‘s temps have risen over 3 degree‘s and that it’s a lot, in such a small period of time. But the theory of it actually changing temperature of the earth is not conclusive, what-so ever. Global warming isn’t interpret accurately, but we do have other problems to consider. All we have is psychical and biological evidence to go on, nothing else. People who normally complain about “global warming” are usually miss-informed slightly. There are many way’s you can argue you this statement and its been argued for 100 years, but all you really can go on is evidentiary support. Yes, we have a problem. But…it’s to erratic and pre-mature to say, the earth climate and temp is changing. Not near enough evidence to argue it, either way. All I know is for a fact is, The North Atlantic Current has been on a warming trend for the past 35 years. Thats a lot considering the earth is over 7 Billion years old. IF this continues, they're will be noticable effects.

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by crozzy
... What I know is, the ozone layer on the Belt is depleting and is warming the North Atlantic current substantially. That is a fact, proven my many Climatologist, who have observed the North Atlantic current temp for years and years have proven that the current‘s temps have risen over 3 degree‘s and that it’s a lot, in such a small period of time ...

Just to point out that the ozone layer depletion has nothing directly to do with global warming. Ozone depletion is exacerbated by chloroflurocarbons ( such as R12 :) ) and is somewhat offset by the solar wind (sunspot activity). Now CFCs are also potent greenhouse gases but the ozone layer depletion itself is something different. Carbon dioxide has no impact on the ozone layer and, at the moment, is the largest contributor to global warming. This will change soon, though, when all the permafrost in Siberia melts (and it has started already) and releases vast amounts of methane, a far more potent greenhouse gas than CO2.

People often conflate the two issues and say it's the hole in the ozone layer that causes global warming. There's no relationship between the two as the ozone layer only filters out ultraviolet radiation which, as all good HVAC people should know, has no heat in it at all. It does kill bacteria very effectively (hence those hard UV air cleaner gizmos that some people fit to their ducts).

[skrewt]

Let's look at all the factors (outside of human) that affect global climate.

1.) Solar flare activity
2.) The angle at which the earth rotates
3.) Fluctuations in the distance to the sun of our orbit.
4.) Fluctuations in the plane that orbit exists in
5.) volcanic activity
6.) Changes in ocean currents

All these factors are in constant flux and it is patently rediculous to believe you can predict anything about global climate with a computer model of 30 years data.

(I know someone said we had temp readings of some BS town in England back in the 1600's but if you don't have worldwide temperature readings you might as well have none)

It has already been shown that no reduction of reflected radiation has been measured and that pretty much disproves the "greenhouse" gas theory. This whole thing is political and anyone who says different is part of the conspiracy.
It is basically a door wedge to the idea of a global tax.
If we can get large industrial nations to pony up money for global warming then the door is open to other "tax" schemes.

[evildberg]

Couldn't we all just run heat pumps in the heating mode so that it would cool the atmosphere?

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by skrewt
Let's look at all the factors (outside of human) that affect global climate.

1.) Solar flare activity
2.) The angle at which the earth rotates
3.) Fluctuations in the distance to the sun of our orbit.
4.) Fluctuations in the plane that orbit exists in
5.) volcanic activity
6.) Changes in ocean currents

All these factors are in constant flux and it is patently rediculous to believe you can predict anything about global climate with a computer model of 30 years data.



(1) does vary for sure
(2) is fixed (even allowing for precession of the axis)
(3) is a fixed elipse and varies naturally throughout the year, but is the same year after year
(4) also fixerd
(5) certainly is the biggest unknown factor
(5) ocean currents are driven by the climate!

Where do you get the deluded idea there are only 30 years of data? Where there no weather forcasts before 1976? Didn't think so.




(I know someone said we had temp readings of some BS town in England back in the 1600's but if you don't have worldwide temperature readings you might as well have none)



This is also a bogus assertion. Global temperatures can be measured back to a high degree of confidence over tens of thousands of years thanks to the ice core records from the antartic. Other methods allow the determination of temperatures over some hundreds of millions of years - this is how, incidentally, some of the ice age cycles were figured out.





It has already been shown that no reduction of reflected radiation has been measured and that pretty much disproves the "greenhouse" gas theory.



This is interesting. The stated accuracy of the infra red sensors that were used to determine this (ERBS) was +/- 5%, which is greater than the change that has been measured in global temperatures. The changes between ice age conditions and normal conditions were less than 2% even these wouldn't have been seen by such an experiment and no-one doubts it was colder during the iceage. Unfortunately, the experiments carried out can't prove or disprove the hypothesis (it's not a theory until accurate predictions can be made from it).




It is basically a door wedge to the idea of a global tax.
If we can get large industrial nations to pony up money for global warming then the door is open to other "tax" schemes.

It should be an opportunity for the industrial nations to make some money. After all, who is going to develop the technology to allow us to adapt to a changing climate (whether it is a man made cause or not doesn't alter the fact that it is getting warmer). The air conditioning industry should be laughing all the way to the bank shouldn't they?!

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by evildberg
Couldn't we all just run heat pumps in the heating mode so that it would cool the atmosphere?

Sadly no, due to the laws of thermodynamics which can be stated simply:

* You can't win.
* You can't break even.
* And you can't get out of the game.

A heatpump used for cooling produces some waste heat - this is the not being able to break even part. So running the heatpump actually adds to the problem. However, if you put the condenser in space ... then it might help. Would be a hell of a lineset though!

[evildberg]

I was kidding pyropaul.

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by evildberg
I was kidding pyropaul.

I know, but I'm sure many people thought "hey, there's a great idea" :)

[skrewt]

(1) does vary for sure
(2) is fixed - NOT!
(3) is a fixed elipse and varies naturally throughout the year, but is the same year after year - NOT!
(4) also fixerd - NOT!
(5) certainly is the biggest unknown factor
(5) ocean currents are driven by the climate! - Sometimes. We are as easily one good earthquake away from a gulf stream change as global warming changing it.

Where do you get the deluded idea there are only 30 years of data? Where there no weather forcasts before 1976? Didn't think so.

Again you are wrong...Global "OCEAN" temperatures (which are more accurate in determining global trends) have not been measured for that long. Ambient air temperatures differ so widely they are pretty much useless unless you have 500 years of data to mark long term trends.






This is also a bogus assertion. Global temperatures can be measured back to a high degree of confidence over tens of thousands of years thanks to the ice core records from the antartic. Other methods allow the determination of temperatures over some hundreds of millions of years - this is how, incidentally, some of the ice age cycles were figured out.


This is a bogus assertion. The accuracy of the ice cores to relative global temperatures is wide. To make assumptions on a 3 deg variance and project that back over History especially in lieu of the margin of error is folly.
The temperatures you refer to are measured by the type of algae that is found at different levels of ice core, these algae that thrive a different temps have wide ranges.




It has already been shown that no reduction of reflected radiation has been measured and that pretty much disproves the "greenhouse" gas theory.



This is interesting. The stated accuracy of the infra red sensors that were used to determine this (ERBS) was +/- 5%, which is greater than the change that has been measured in global temperatures. The changes between ice age conditions and normal conditions were less than 2% even these wouldn't have been seen by such an experiment and no-one doubts it was colder during the iceage. Unfortunately, the experiments carried out can't prove or disprove the hypothesis (it's not a theory until accurate predictions can be made from it).

Reflected radiation levels and temperature are not a direct proportion.




It is basically a door wedge to the idea of a global tax.
If we can get large industrial nations to pony up money for global warming then the door is open to other "tax" schemes.

It should be an opportunity for the industrial nations to make some money. After all, who is going to develop the technology to allow us to adapt to a changing climate (whether it is a man made cause or not doesn't alter the fact that it is getting warmer). The air conditioning industry should be laughing all the way to the bank shouldn't they?! [/B][/QUOTE]

Not when industrial nations are tasked to pay money and reduce emissions while countries like China are exempt.
This is directly a skewing of the playing field and so is a political power shift attempt.

[pyropaul]

Originally posted by skrewt

Not when industrial nations are tasked to pay money and reduce emissions while countries like China are exempt.
This is directly a skewing of the playing field and so is a political power shift attempt.

This I agree with. If anything is to be done to tackle CO2 emissions, then it should apply equally to all without exempting large future contributors to the problem. This could still be to the West's benefit, though, if a global carbon trade was put into effect. Advanced societies who reduce their emissions could sell their improvements to those that don't. Of course, one could argue that such a scheme is flawed in that it sidesteps the underlying issues (if we are to believe that the current climate change is due to mankind). Whether it is or not, there is certainly a strong correlation between global temperatures and CO2/CH4 levels in the atmosphere. You're also right that the earth's axis of tilt is not as fixed as I was implying it to be. Doing some googling on that topic, unearthed a nice graphic of CO2 and CH4 levels versus global temperature over the last 420,000 years from ice core data at Vostok. They are clearly correlated, but that doesn't imply one causes the other (or vice versa). However, at no time has there been a high CO2 level and a low temperature (or vice versa).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Vostok_420ky_4curves_insolation.jpg

One thing's for sure, though, is that there is a lot of money to be made on high efficiency low emission energy systems, even if people can't agree on whether we should try and do anything about climate change or not. It certainly makes it interesting living in a country which is both the largest supplier of energy to the US and has probably the largest proven reserves of energy in the World.

[MikeJ]

Originally posted by pyropaul
[QUOTE]Originally posted by skrewt
[B]Let's look at all the factors (outside of human) that affect global climate.

1.) Solar flare activity
2.) The angle at which the earth rotates
3.) Fluctuations in the distance to the sun of our orbit.
4.) Fluctuations in the plane that orbit exists in
5.) volcanic activity
6.) Changes in ocean currents

All these factors are in constant flux and it is patently rediculous to believe you can predict anything about global climate with a computer model of 30 years data.



(1) does vary for sure
(2) is fixed (even allowing for precession of the axis)
(3) is a fixed elipse and varies naturally throughout the year, but is the same year after year
(4) also fixerd
(5) certainly is the biggest unknown factor
(5) ocean currents are driven by the climate!

Where do you get the deluded idea there are only 30 years of data? Where there no weather forcasts before 1976? Didn't think so.

[QUOTE][b]

#'s 2,3,&4 could use some data to back up.

Try these answers to start with:

http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/ask/arot.html


Sunsposts anyone?

http://www.solarstorms.org/SClimate.html

[Edited by MikeJ on 03-12-2006 at 09:21 AM]

[re2ell]

the National Acadamies at least seem to be non-partisan. interesting reading from them, to say the least.

http://fermat.nap.edu/execsumm_pdf/10136.pdf

another off-the-wall site is Bill Larnach's S190 Global Warming Journal.

http://larnach.info/S190/

seems to me a lot of the hype is just that, hype. is the earth changing, i would think so. are we causing it, i would think not; the changing earth has been changing since the day it was formulated.