Yet more proof Global Warming does not exist

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/11/22/norway.warming.reut/index.html


I'm sure Reindeer were due for extinction anyway....

[GeepNutt]

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

Forget about the hurricanes.......

[TrailBate]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11951694/

You've got to be a bonehead (republican) to believe global warming does not exist.

[Slider]

http://www.magazine.noaa.gov/stories/mag184.htm

Forget about the hurricanes.......


That was the party line dictated by The Moron in Charge. This is the real story, and it says that lots of researchers see a direct link between warming and hurricane intensity.

Slider


Statement Acknowledges
Some Government Scientists
See Link to Global Warming

By ANTONIO REGALADO and JIM CARLTON
February 16, 2006; Page A4

Amid a growing outcry from climate researchers in its own ranks, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration backed away from a statement it released after last year's powerful hurricane season that discounted any link to global warming.

A corrected statement, which says some NOAA researchers disagree with that view, was posted to NOAA's Web site yesterday.

The change is part of a high-stakes fight over the issue of global warming, and what some scientists complain is a widening gap between what their research shows and White House climate policy.

Three NOAA scientists, speaking in interviews, said the agency has begun keeping closer tabs on their comments to journalists. One of them also said the agency has declined to let him take part in interviews on controversial topics.

Such charges have been publicly leveled by scientists outside the agency since December. They gained force last week when James Hansen, a climate researcher at NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, again accused NOAA of censoring scientific communication. Dr. Hansen has said NASA public-affairs officials had tried to discourage him from presenting his views that human activities could lead to severe global warming.

Late Tuesday, NOAA administrator Conrad C. Lautenbacher Jr., sent an email to agency staff saying that he encourages "scientists to speak freely and openly" and rejected charges that NOAA scientists have been discouraged from commenting on whether human-caused global warming is influencing hurricanes.

In the wake of Dr. Hansen's comments, some NOAA scientists say they are now speaking out.

Pieter Tans, a researcher who studies carbon dioxide at NOAA's Earth System Research Laboratory in Boulder, Colo., says public-affairs "minders" now sit in on more interviews, something that didn't happen before. He said he sees it as an attempt to control comments about the dangers of climate change.

A ruckus erupted after the November issue of the agency's magazine said there was a "consensus" among NOAA hurricane experts that increases in hurricane activity were primarily the result of natural factors -- even though within NOAA some believed man-made warming was a key cause.

Kerry Emanuel, a climate researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, said he found the statement problematic because it appeared to represent an official NOAA position, and might discourage agency scientists from contradicting it. Dr. Emanuel, who believes global warming is making hurricanes worse, was among the first to publicly criticize NOAA's policy at a major meeting in December, where he termed it "censorship."

Scott Smullen, NOAA's deputy director of public affairs, said the article was never meant to be an official position, and added that the use of the word "consensus" was a mistake made by one of his staff members. "There is no consensus," Mr. Smullen said.

Thomas Knutson, a research meteorologist with the agency's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, N.J., said he believes his views have been censored by the NOAA public-affairs office because of his view that global warming could be making hurricanes worse. Last October the public-affairs office said no to a scheduled interview with CNBC television, he said.

"NOAA public affairs called and asked what I would say to certain questions, like is there a trend in Atlantic hurricanes," Dr. Knutson said. "I said I thought there was a possibility of a trend emerging that tropical hurricanes were becoming more intense. They turned down that interview."

Mr. Smullen says he wasn't aware of that particular case, but notes that Dr. Knutson gives dozens of interviews a year, and that interview requests can be turned down for numerous reasons.

On another occasion, Dr. Knutson said he had been invited around the time of Hurricane Katrina to appear on a television show with Ron Reagan, the son of former President Reagan who is co-host of a show on MSNBC. But shortly before he was to appear, he got a voice mail from a person in public affairs. "He said, 'The White House turned it down,' " Dr. Knutson said.

White House officials said they weren't immediately aware of any attempt on their part to block Dr. Knutson's interview, but added they don't censor government scientists. They added NOAA researchers gave numerous interviews during the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. "Dr. Tom Knutson took part in those interviews and is a leading climate modeler and well respected in the scientific community," said White House spokeswoman Michele St. Martin.

NOAA officials say the White House doesn't rule on their media requests. They also say they weren't immediately aware of the Ron Reagan matter, but add they usually decline media requests when it appears they are frivolous. "If someone were to call in and it is in the nature of a food fight, we decline that," said Jordan St. John, director of NOAA's public affairs. "We are a serious science agency."

[TrailBate]

I actually heard Rush Limbaugh the other day repeat the retarded "fact" that cars do NOT cause pollution. He did not cite any sources. He just said he is right 99% of the time (according to the Sullivan Group....whatever that is). he went on to say Mt. Pinatubo created more pollution in one day that all mankind has produced throughout history.

Oh, and Pat Robertson also said the other day that liberal college professors beat and abuse students, along with brainwashing.

[TrailBate]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/03/26/coverstory/index.html

Funny. Rush Limbaugh says global warming does not exist. He also says he's right 99.9% of the time. Hmmm.....

[kernel crash]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.

[TrailBate]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.




point?

[Slider]

Sunday, March 26, 2006

Sunday morning's low of 47 degrees at Palm Beach International Airport, recorded at 6:36 a.m., was the coolest on record, according to the National Weather Service in Miami.

The old record was set in 1979, when the overnight temperature dropped to 48 degrees.


If you think that any specific temperature, anywhere on the globe, has something to do with global warming, you don't understand the process. It is about the temperature of the planet as a whole, which is undeniably increasing at the fastest rate we've seen.

Slider

[BG]

Science, politics, bulshit or aliens?

BG

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html

[Slider]

Science, politics, bulshit or aliens?

BG

http://www.crichton-official.com/speeches/speeches_quote04.html


Pure idiotic blathering, already pretty well parsed here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

Slider

[BG]

"Pure idiotic blathering"

Pretty much what's going on here.

BG

[Slider]

"Pure idiotic blathering"

Pretty much what's going on here.

BG


Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do.

Slider

[BG]

"Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do."

Thank You, and ditto.
Without idotic blathering the world as we know and love it would cease to exist.
Is that where we are headed?

BG

[Slider]

"Everyone here is welcome to speak for themselves, as you clearly do."

Thank You, and ditto.
Without idotic blathering the world as we know and love it would cease to exist.
Is that where we are headed?
BG


Not only headed, but where we come from, too.

Slider

[catbbq]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.

Real question is why does Crichton have such a cobb up his butt about it?

[TrailBate]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.




are you answering my sarcasm with more sarcasm? Touche!

[catbbq]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif

Global temps went down from 1945 to 1955ish and again from 1960 to 1965. Yet CO2 levels didn't show any decrease during that time. (Sorry, having trouble finding that data.)

Seems like Trailbait is right it that there is pretty good evidence against global warming.




are you answering my sarcasm with more sarcasm? Touche!


Sarcasm?

[Slider]

I am going to have to agree with Trailbait on this one. Global warming seems like a load of methane producing cow crap.

Just look at the infallible data of NASA.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2_lrg.gif



I think we have to separate out some terms to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Your NASA graph pretty clearly shows a strong trend toward increasing temps. That would be "global warming." But, if I am reading your post correctly, you are arguing about the relationship between CO2 and the overall rise in temps (AKA "The Greenhouse Effect"), saying they're unrelated. This is untrue.

You cite as evidence the fact that we've seen other trends in temperature, up and down, and, I am guessing, you can't see an immediate correlation to CO2 level changes. This is because CO2 is not the only factor effecting temperatures on the earth. There are many, many others, including solar activity. One massive asteroid would be pretty, um, impactful, too.

But that says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Virtually ALL research into climate history shows that higher temps are always accompanied by elevated CO2 levels. Note that you have to ignore the short term trends, because of the many factors that can effect temps on a day-to-day basis. The meaningful trend, from a climatological perspective, is the overall temperature trend, correlated to the overall CO2 trend. Both are climbing like Lance Armstrong in the mountains.

The NASA graph, helpfully, starts just about the time the Industrial Revolution started, when we really began boosting the amount of CO2 we humans produce, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. That was the key bit of evidence that put the many researchers worldwide on the job of defining the relationship between humans and climate. The big jump at the same time in both temperature and CO2 suggested the two were related, and lots more follow-up research has supported that idea.

Slider

[BG]

There's ton's of "evidence" againg global warming, just gotta look in the "right" places.

BG

[Slider]

There's ton's of "evidence" againg global warming, just gotta look in the "right" places.

BG


No, there's literally no evidence against global warming. Virtually all primary researchers looking into it have come to the same conclusion. The only "evidence" is second or third hand misinterpretations of the first hand research, like that BS Crichton was trying to pass off as reason.

If you got something, let's see it.

Slider

[BG]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html

Sarcasm?

BG

[kernel crash]

So we know that the earth has gone through several ice ages where the oceans have risen and fallen. Huge sheets of ice have covered many areas of North America. Obviously the temps were also rising and falling. Damn those prehistoric cave dwelling mo fo's with their hummers! Or could it be something else? Maybe something that we don't have a complete handle on. Maybe that was the point Crichton was trying to make.

[Slider]

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html

Sarcasm?

BG


That isn't research. It is a political position paper, and a very dated one at that.

Slider

[Slider]

So we know that the earth has gone through several ice ages where the oceans have risen and fallen. Huge sheets of ice have covered many areas of North America. Obviously the temps were also rising and falling. Damn those prehistoric cave dwelling mo fo's with their hummers! Or could it be something else? Maybe something that we don't have a complete handle on. Maybe that was the point Crichton was trying to make.


No, he was saying there's no relationship between CO2 and temperature. He was saying, in a very convoluted way, that the researchers were misinterpreting their own data. Mostly, he was saying that the scientific method was an invalid approach to researching truth. His solution? Set up a scientific experiement, using the very methodology that he was criticizing. So science works for his attempt to prove that there's no Greenhouse Effect, but not to prove there is one. Interesting and revealing.

You mention sheets of ice covering the planet, and temps rising and falling. Guess what? At the same time, the CO2 levels were rising and falling, right along with the temps. Looking at ancient ice is one of the best sources for gauging past CO2 levels.

There are lots of sources of CO2, volcanoes being an obvious one. Kill lots of plants, and they stop converting that CO2 to oxygen, so you get more CO2. Drop a large asteroid on the planet, kill lots of plants and at the same time push lots of crap into the atmosphere so that more plants die, and CO2 will rise. No Hummers required.

The atmosphere is a constantly changing mix of gasses. Right now, CO2 is on the rise. It is no coincidence that temperature is, too.

Slider

[catbbq]

I think we have to separate out some terms to make sure we're talking about the same things.

Your NASA graph pretty clearly shows a strong trend toward increasing temps. That would be "global warming." But, if I am reading your post correctly, you are arguing about the relationship between CO2 and the overall rise in temps (AKA "The Greenhouse Effect"), saying they're unrelated. This is untrue.

You cite as evidence the fact that we've seen other trends in temperature, up and down, and, I am guessing, you can't see an immediate correlation to CO2 level changes. This is because CO2 is not the only factor effecting temperatures on the earth. There are many, many others, including solar activity. One massive asteroid would be pretty, um, impactful, too.

But that says nothing about the relationship between CO2 and temperature. Virtually ALL research into climate history shows that higher temps are always accompanied by elevated CO2 levels. Note that you have to ignore the short term trends, because of the many factors that can effect temps on a day-to-day basis. The meaningful trend, from a climatological perspective, is the overall temperature trend, correlated to the overall CO2 trend. Both are climbing like Lance Armstrong in the mountains.

The NASA graph, helpfully, starts just about the time the Industrial Revolution started, when we really began boosting the amount of CO2 we humans produce, mostly due to the burning of fossil fuels. That was the key bit of evidence that put the many researchers worldwide on the job of defining the relationship between humans and climate. The big jump at the same time in both temperature and CO2 suggested the two were related, and lots more follow-up research has supported that idea.

Slider



So your suggesting what to prevent (stop, reverse, whatever) global warming? Lowering temps so CO2 levels go down? Some type of astroid defense system? A big shiny sheet to block solar activity?


I read Crichton's speech. I didn't see anything I could disagree with. Where is the fallacy?

[BG]

http://www.cei.org/pdf/4691.pdf

BG

[MTBME]

Hey if Al Gore didn't write it, it aint true.

[Slider]

So your suggesting what to prevent (stop, reverse, whatever) global warming? Lowering temps so CO2 levels go down? Some type of astroid defense system? A big shiny sheet to block solar activity?

I read Crichton's speech. I didn't see anything I could disagree with. Where is the fallacy?

Cat,

Read the past discussion in this forum. I think his arguments are very transparent, and described exactly how here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

The methods for stopping the warming are the reason Bush and his ilk want to deny its existence: They'll hurt his industry pals, who paid him, literally, to protect them. Primarily, we're talking the oil industry. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest source of man-made CO2. Any reduction, to Bush's mind, will impact them and the economy generally. Of course, this ignores the far greater impact the violent climactic change will bring. Very typical for Bush, missing the bigger picture completely.

Slider

[BG]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/

BG

[catbbq]

Cat,

Read the past discussion in this forum. I think his arguments are very transparent, and described exactly how here:

http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=37;action=display;threadid=7642;st art=30

The methods for stopping the warming are the reason Bush and his ilk want to deny its existence: They'll hurt his industry pals, who paid him, literally, to protect them. Primarily, we're talking the oil industry. Burning fossil fuels are the biggest source of man-made CO2. Any reduction, to Bush's mind, will impact them and the economy generally. Of course, this ignores the far greater impact the violent climactic change will bring. Very typical for Bush, missing the bigger picture completely.

Slider


Guess I am missing it. That thread and this one too seems to have you suggesting that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Yet the very data the so called scientists are using to prove global warming has huge holes in it. In the case of the data I cited (NASA data), it has a mean temp drop between 1940 and 1970. So it seems quiet obvious that other things besides CO2 are causing it. And if CO2 isn't the major cause, then the idea that we can stop it by decreasing CO2 emmissions is ludicrous.

And that is assuming there is something to stop.

[Slider]

http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/category/climate-changes/

BG


Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time. Pure spin, with no real competing counterpoint other than some kind of backhanded slap at, well, I am not sure. Any weather related research, I guess.

I mean, they're saying all this research is what? Fabricated? The product of some great conspiracy among them damn geek scientists? It is pretty hard to find what, exactly, they do believe other than it is not what the researchers say. They clearly have some sort of inside line that the professionals missed.

Slider

[BG]

"Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time."

I don't believe that for one second, there i'm over it. You are lying to me now i just know it. Here's some more for you.
Read it and weep

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

BG

[Slider]

Guess I am missing it. That thread and this one too seems to have you suggesting that CO2 is the major cause of global warming. Yet the very data the so called scientists are using to prove global warming has huge holes in it. In the case of the data I cited (NASA data), it has a mean temp drop between 1940 and 1970. So it seems quiet obvious that other things besides CO2 are causing it. And if CO2 isn't the major cause, then the idea that we can stop it by decreasing CO2 emmissions is ludicrous.

And that is assuming there is something to stop.


A 30 year span is meaningless because of potential short term influences - a volcanic eruption, for example. But looking longer term, the trends are more obvious. Your NASA graph is a good example of that. The temperature is obviously climbing, and the rate of temperature increase is increasing, too.

During the same time span, the amount of CO2 we humans pump into the atmosphere has increased dramatically. Any ancient climates that we look at say the same thing: When the earth had a warmer climate, it also had higher levels of CO2. That makes it extremely likely that the two are connected.

Slider

[Slider]

"Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time."

I don't believe that for one second, there i'm over it. You are lying to me now i just know it. Here's some more for you.
Read it and weep

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

BG



He's saying there's a lot of water vapor in the air? OK. How nice. Lots of scientists think so, and study it, too. No one ignores it, which is what this fellow is claiming.

Water is, um, pretty important, and plays a key role in lots of the mechanisms that move carbon around in the atmosphere. This guy seems to be saying he discovered that fact. Sorry, someone beat him to it.

Slider

[catbbq]

Wow!! I haven't seen such a load of crap assembled into one place in a long time. Pure spin, with no real competing counterpoint other than some kind of backhanded slap at, well, I am not sure. Any weather related research, I guess.


http://www.nemba.org/NEMBAforum/index.php?board=;action=usersrecentposts;userid=12 92;user=TrailBate&viewscount=10

[TrailBate]

I can (sorta) understand arguing WHY global warming is happening, but you can't argue whether or not it IS happening. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.

[BG]

" The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable."

That dosen't necessarily make a difference with anything anymore.

BG

[FriedRys]

I can (sorta) understand arguing WHY global warming is happening, but you can't argue whether or not it IS happening. The evidence is overwhelming and irrefutable.
I'm gonna have to agree, it's definately getting warmer. Whether or not its from car's and coal plant's or volcanos and a natural cycle the world is going through, who knows?

[off piste]

Wow -- when the body wants to get rid of a pesky, irritating microbe, what's the first reaction it has?

FEVER

Heh, heh, heh......

[Slider]

Fever definitely helps our bodies kill things off. On the earth, higher temps do the same thing.

Coral reefs are the foundation for the whole tropical food chain. It is a very, very bad thing.

Slider

Caribbean coral suffers record die-off
World's coral reef loss 'an underwater holocaust'

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A one-two punch of bleaching from record hot water followed by disease has killed ancient and delicate coral in the biggest loss of reefs scientists have ever seen in Caribbean waters.

Researchers from around the globe are scrambling to figure out the extent of the loss. Early conservative estimates from Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands find that about one-third of the coral in official monitoring sites has recently died.

"It's an unprecedented die-off," said National Park Service fisheries biologist Jeff Miller, who last week checked 40 stations in the Virgin Islands.

"The mortality that we're seeing now is of the extremely slow-growing reef-building corals. These are corals that are the foundation of the reef ... We're talking colonies that were here when Columbus came by have died in the past three to four months."

Some of the devastated coral can never be replaced because it only grows the width of one dime a year, Miller said.

Coral reefs are the basis for a multibillion-dollar tourism and commercial fishing economy in the Caribbean. Key fish species use coral as habitat and feeding grounds. Reefs limit the damage from hurricanes and tsunamis. More recently they are being touted as possible sources for new medicines.

If coral reefs die "you lose the goose with golden eggs" that are key parts of small island economies, said Edwin Hernandez-Delgado, a University of Puerto Rico biology researcher.

On Sunday, Hernandez-Delgado found a colony of 800-year-old star coral -- more than 13 feet high -- that had just died in the waters off Puerto Rico.

"We did lose entire colonies," he said. "This is something we have never seen before."

On Wednesday, Tyler Smith, coordinator of the U.S. Virgin Islands Coral Reef Monitoring program, dived at a popular spot for tourists in St. Thomas and saw an old chunk of brain coral, about 3 feet in diameter, that was at least 90 percent dead from the disease called "white plague."

"We haven't seen an event of this magnitude in the Caribbean before," said Mark Eakin, coordinator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Coral Reef Watch.

The Caribbean is actually better off than areas of the Indian and Pacific ocean where mortality rates -- mostly from warming waters -- have been in the 90 percent range in past years, said Tom Goreau of the Global Coral Reef Alliance. Goreau called what's happening worldwide "an underwater holocaust."

And with global warming, scientists are pessimistic about the future of coral reefs.

"The prognosis is not good," said biochemistry professor M. James Crabbe of the University of Luton near London. In early April, he will investigate coral reef mortality in Jamaica. "If you want to see a coral reef, go now, because they just won't survive in their current state."

For the Caribbean, it all started with hot sea temperatures, first in Panama in the spring and early summer, and it got worse from there.

New NOAA sea surface temperature figures show the sustained heating in the Caribbean last summer and fall was by far the worst in 21 years of satellite monitoring, Eakin said.

"The 2005 event is bigger than all the previous 20 years combined," he said.

What happened in the Caribbean would be the equivalent of every city in the United States recording a record high temperature at the same time, Eakin said. And it remained hot for weeks, even months, stressing the coral.

The heat causes the symbiotic algae that provides food for the coral to die and turn white. That puts the coral in critical condition. If coral remains bleached for more than a week, the chance of death soars, according to NOAA scientists.

In the past, only some coral species would bleach during hot water spells and the problem would occur only at certain depths. But in 2005, bleaching struck far more of the region at all depths and in most species.

A February NOAA report calculates 96 percent of lettuce coral, 93 percent of the star coral and nearly 61 percent of the iconic brain coral in St. Croix had bleached. Much of the coral had started to recover from the bleaching last fall, but then the weakened colonies were struck by disease, finishing them off.

Eakin, who oversees the temperature study of the warmer water, said it's hard to point to global warming for just one season's high temperatures, but other scientists are convinced.

"This is probably a harbinger of things to come," said John Rollino, the chief scientist for the Bahamian Reef Survey. "The coral bleaching is probably more a symptom of disease -- the widespread global environmental degradation -- that's going on."

Crabbe said evidence of global warming is overwhelming.

"The big problem for coral is the question of whether they can adapt sufficiently quickly to cope with climate change," Crabbe said. "I think the evidence we have at the moment is: No, they can't.

"It'll not be the same ecosystem," he said. "The fish will go away. The smaller predators will go away. The invertebrates will go away."

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

[BG]

http://www.mediarights.org/festival/presentation/hc_threats.htm

BG

[off piste]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......

[Slider]

http://www.mediarights.org/festival/presentation/hc_threats.htm

BG


This particular bleaching event followed a long period of record high water temps. The other things on your list may have played a role, but the temps stand out.

Slider

[Slider]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


It would be nice if our century of environmental abuse could be negated so easily. Instead, we're only digging a deeper and deeper environmental hole, just like the economic, diplomatic and fascisistic ones he's leading us into.

There's no such thing as getting the time back.

Slider

[BG]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


LMAO, that's almost as funny as this site.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=muppet

BG

[off piste]

Don't worry -- in a few more years when Bush is out of office, everything will return to normal......


It would be nice if our century of environmental abuse could be negated so easily. Instead, we're only digging a deeper and deeper environmental hole, just like the economic, diplomatic and fascisistic ones he's leading us into.

There's no such thing as getting the time back.

Slider



Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---


When we're gone.......

[BG]

Maybe the quicker WE go, the better off the WORLD will be.

BG

[off piste]

http://www.shirtfreaks.com/19/index.php

But not until I do a little more trailwork.........

[Slider]

Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---
When we're gone.......


No matter what we do? This sounds simply idiotic.

Slider

[BG]

Yeah, personally i think it's pretty cool that mankind is taking on the responsibility of it's own destruction as opposed to allowing some "natural" calamity to randomly take it's course. Maybe something even more hideous will spawn in the polluted oceans and rise to the challange to take over where we left off.

BG

[kernel crash]

"Maybe something even more hideous will spawn in the polluted oceans and rise to the challange to take over where we left off. "

Exactly. That's what evolution is all about.

[off piste]

Don't work yourself into a stroke over everything. Theworld will be fine, as it always has been. It'll endure and be a great place ---
When we're gone.......


No matter what we do? This sounds simply idiotic.

Slider


I was getting the impression from your diatribe that you thought we were past the point of no return. As that's apparently not the case, then what do you offer up as a solution, and how do you propose we get there? Or do you just want to continue blowing the horn and passing it off as taking action?

[Slider]

I was getting the impression from your diatribe that you thought we were past the point of no return. As that's apparently not the case, then what do you offer up as a solution, and how do you propose we get there? Or do you just want to continue blowing the horn and passing it off as taking action?


There is nothing to return to, or leave. There's only sane stewardship and a realistic assessment of our place in the creation of the planet's climate. We're part of a process, and we have to respect our role and understand the consequences of our actions. It won't take us back to some pristine Eden, but it can help us leave something viable to our descendants.

If we're talking about warming, the subject of this thread, then we need to restrict things that produce the greenhouse gasses. It took the U.S. Court of Appeals to force Bush to enforce the Clean Air Act, and lots more pollution entered the atmosphere in the meanwhile. There are many, many more examples that show the idiocy of Bush's envinromental stance. We need several decades of sound management to make even a slight dent in the warming trend. No better time to start than now.

Slider

[TrailBate]

luckily, Bush is selling off forests and parks. Which is a good thing, since as any Reagan Republican will tell you, trees cause more pollution than cars.

[off piste]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....

[BG]

luckily, Bush is selling off forests and parks. Which is a good thing, since as any Reagan Republican will tell you, trees cause more pollution than cars.


Free Republic
Home · Browse · Search News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skip to comments.

Pines recycle pollutants, study finds (President Reagan was right)
The Globe and Mail ^ | Thursday, March 13, 2003 | ANNE McILROY


Posted on 03/13/2003 7:12:11 AM PST by Isara


Coniferous forests may produce more smog components than traffic does, calculations suggest

Maybe Ronald Reagan was right after all about trees being big polluters. A new study suggests the Scotch pine and other northern evergreens may emit more nitrogen oxides -- key components of smog -- than all the cars and industrial plants on the planet.

It has been known for years that some plants emit small amounts of nitrogen oxides. Now, a team of Finnish and U.S. researchers has found that Scotch pine needles increase those emissions substantially when they are exposed to ultraviolet radiation from the sun. This led the researchers to make a provocative calculation.

"Our findings suggest that global nitrogen-oxides emissions from boreal coniferous forests may be comparable to those produced by worldwide industrial and traffic sources," says the paper, published in today's edition of the British journal Nature.

This would have delighted Mr. Reagan, the former U.S. president now incapacitated by Alzheimer's disease. Environmentalists ridiculed him in the early 1980s for declaring that "trees cause more pollution than automobiles."

Although he grossly overstated the case for plants as polluters, Mr. Reagan's so-called "killer tree" statement was based on science.

In the mid-1960s, U.S. researcher Reinhold Rasmussen, intrigued by the blue haze or atmospheric mist over Virginia's Blue Ridge Mountains, published the first paper making the connection between trees and smog. Ten years ago, other researchers began building on his work, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency is studying trees' contribution to pollution in the southeastern U.S.

But Mr. Reagan's mistake, at least with nitrogen oxides, was in saying that trees cause air pollution. Trees emit nitrogen oxides, but they are recycling what is already in the atmosphere, not producing more, said William Munger, a Harvard University atmospheric scientist and co-author of the Nature paper.

In other words, trees are not like cars. One hundred years ago, concentrations of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere were far lower, Dr. Munger said. A little bit of them is produced naturally, by such things as lightning strikes and forest fires.

"The industrial world has made huge changes in that amount," he said.

This means that trees are probably recycling more nitrogen oxide. But that may not create smog, perhaps because the other chemical components aren't readily available. Tests in northern Quebec, for example, have found low levels of smog in the forests.

Recent work in Greenland found that snow also emits nitrogen oxides. Again, the snow is recycling the gas, not producing it, Dr. Munger said. (This is good news for Canada, as it is rich in both snow and evergreens.)

Researchers don't know much about how nitrogen-oxide cycling works, so the finding that sunlight is involved is significant, he said.

Kevin Percy, a researcher at the Canadian Forest Service, agrees that the finding is interesting. But he is not sure it is correct to assume that all evergreens produce nitrogen oxides.

He said the study's researchers may have overestimated the number of Scotch pines in the world -- the trees are common in Northern Europe, but in Canada's boreal forests, black spruce and trembling aspen predominate -- and may have been bombarding the pine needles with high levels of ultraviolet radiation not found in most of Canada.

[Slider]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....


Blah blah blah.

All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law.

Slider

[off piste]

Ok, well, that's a start. So, how you propose we accomplish what you've just stated? You've implied that we're not past the point of no return, but now again you're implying that one man and his policies are the reason for Global Warming. Then, two posts back, you acknowledge that this process has been going on for more than a century. So, to say that this one administration is having more of an effect than all the preceeding activities of all humanity over the past century and a half seems to make it look like you endow the Bush Administration with the god like ability to go forward and push us over the cusp, of change course and stop us from going to destruction.

So, all this has been going on for a century and a half, so what do you propose we do? You gift to the world Democrats and your genius adversaries the Republicans have been in control of it all since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. So, give us some answers. Maybe if you'd managed to put a decent frontrunner that could be taken seriously into the race other than that joke Kerry, then you'd at least be able to blame your failures on the fact that it'd take at least 4 consecutive Democratic terms do undo the damage the Republicans did.....


Blah blah blah.

All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law.

Slider


Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though

[Slider]

Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though


Sidestep of what?

I never placed blame for the warming on anyone other than, collectively, all of us. Like you, I drive a car, heat my house, take the occasional plane flight. I exhale regularly, too. They all contribute C02 to the atmosphere, and the amount of that CO2 is growing at an ever increasing pace.

Recently, within the last couple of decades, we've started to understand what all that CO2 does to the climate. That grasp helps us make laws, like the Clean Air Act, that can help minimize the bad effects of our wasteful lifestyle. Then we have to enforce those laws. This is where your boy Bush just seems to not get the point. Too bad it took the Court of Appeals to help him understand his responsibility. And too bad there are so many other issues where he is equally clueless.

Slider

[BG]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG

[Slider]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG


I dunno. What's the approval rating these days? 32% or so, I think.

People don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want.

Slider

[off piste]

"All we need is sane policy, and a president who upholds his oath to enforce the law."

The people have spoken, they don't wan't that.
They want cheap gasoline and cheap produce untill the dire end.

BG




I dunno. What's the approval rating these days? 32% or so, I think.

People don't know what they want, but they know what they don't want.

Slider


Yep, they don't want the Republicans, and they didn't want Kerry. You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.

[Slider]

You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.


Really, you give me far too much credit. I gave up my membership in the Iluminati a long time ago. It was interfering with my bike time.

And what, dare I ask, has your role been?

Slider

[off piste]

You're right -- they're getting sick of the same old BS you and your "adversaries" (LOL!) have been giving us for all these generations.


Really, you give me far too much credit. I gave up my membership in the Iluminati a long time ago. It was interfering with my bike time.

And what, dare I ask, has your role been?

Slider


I invented the Internet.......

[BG]

"I invented the Internet....... "

I hate you now.

BG

[off piste]

"I invented the Internet....... "

I hate you now.

BG


That's my middle of the road stance -- I thought I was Al Gore for a second. Give me a minute, and I'll switch Right and go outside and throw asbestos around on the street.

[Slider]

Wow, so you were the one Al Gore encouraged when he said he "took the initiative in creating the internet"? I thought he meant he proposed and supported legislation that funded the research. I guess it was more direct than that. Thanks for filling in the missing history.

Slider

[off piste]

No, actually my intent was to drop a bare, unbaited hook in the water and induce in you the predictable response of completely dropping the argument at hand and going into defense mode when an old stereotype of a Democratic "icon" was used. Not that it implies that you have a blinder-like, party-based agenda or anything.

Don't have a stroke -- the world'll be a better place -- when we're all gone!

Sorry for the humor......

[BG]

"I stand by all the misstatements that I've made."

-- Vice President Al Gore to Sam Donaldson, 8/17/93

I can relate to this one

BG

[Slider]

No, actually my intent was to drop a bare, unbaited hook in the water and induce in you the predictable response of completely dropping the argument at hand and going into defense mode when an old stereotype of a Democratic "icon" was used. Not that it implies that you have a blinder-like, party-based agenda or anything.

Don't have a stroke -- the world'll be a better place -- when we're all gone!

Sorry for the humor......



Party based? I've been pretty specifc in defense of my posts. I don't need tricks to change the subject, because I can support what I say.

Slider

[BG]

Party based? This is more bouillabaissed than anything.

BG

[off piste]

Really? And once again, you acknowleged that global warming has been going on for over a century. Over the last century we've had many presidents. Not that blaming global warming on American policy versus the combined activities of all Humanity for over a century isn't moronitude personified in the first place.....

Nice side step though


Sidestep of what?

I never placed blame for the warming on anyone other than, collectively, all of us. Like you, I drive a car, heat my house, take the occasional plane flight. I exhale regularly, too. They all contribute C02 to the atmosphere, and the amount of that CO2 is growing at an ever increasing pace.

Recently, within the last couple of decades, we've started to understand what all that CO2 does to the climate. That grasp helps us make laws, like the Clean Air Act, that can help minimize the bad effects of our wasteful lifestyle. Then we have to enforce those laws. This is where your boy Bush just seems to not get the point. Too bad it took the Court of Appeals to help him understand his responsibility. And too bad there are so many other issues where he is equally clueless.

Slider



My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.

[BG]

OK, the "soup" is getting to thick for me here. I need to go find my "inner idiot" and relax. (the dvd, good flick)

BG

[off piste]

Only an Inner Idiot would eat soup with a knife.....

Later Bob

[Slider]

My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.


OK. So why are we having this conversation? Hasn't Bush lived down to your worst expectations? Wouldn't ignoring the Clean Air Act, and getting slapped in court for it, be a great example of how inept/corrupt/idiotic the guy is?

Slider

[off piste]

My boy Bush? Surprise -- wanted Bush out in the last election. If your side had put someone decent in the election, maybe thing's would be different, but I doubt it. Another surprise -- even though you put that joke up for election -- I voted Kerry! :o

Why? Because I knew he didn't stand a chance of getting elected, and I didn't want to have to take my 1/50000000th (or whatever) part of the responsibility for putting Bush there.


OK. So why are we having this conversation? Hasn't Bush lived down to your worst expectations? Wouldn't ignoring the Clean Air Act, and getting slapped in court for it, be a great example of how inept/corrupt/idiotic the guy is?

Slider





Sorry if I'm not making myself clear. I'll try and type slow this time.

I don't believe your side is the answer either. In fact, I think yours is the other side of the same evil, vile coin. When your side gets in, there'll be no difference, just a continuation of the downward slide.

[Slider]

Ah, I see. Cynicism. It really isn't that bad. I mean, eliminate the Iraq war, the Haliburton handouts, and the rape of the Bill of Rights and the environment, and the country is a far better place.

Small decisions and big ones do make a difference. Democracy is a pretty good system, if it is respected, defended and protected. The fact that it isn't now is the biggest problem we face, but the inherint strength of the concept is what will save us.

Even the environmental situation is something we can survive, but I wouldn't want to live on this planet in 50 years. That is one of the main reasons I don't have kids. But, truth be told, the future residents of the planet will not miss what we now have, but instead they'll have their own issues. The bottom line is that they'll cope just fine, as do we.

Slider

[off piste]

Ok, I got it. Your outlook isn't as bleask as these hundreds of pages between you and Trailbait would lead us to believe. You reallydo see everything that's troubling you as stemming from the Bush administration, and its elimination will make things right again.

I see the public service that your'e performing for us now! By getting up on your box and sounding the air raid siren, you're alerting us all to take action! I hear you brother! I guarantee you, I and everyone else will follow your lead and vote Bush out in the next election!!! He won't get a 3rd term if we can help it, by gum!

[Slider]

Ok, I got it. Your outlook isn't as bleask as these hundreds of pages between you and Trailbait would lead us to believe. You reallydo see everything that's troubling you as stemming from the Bush administration, and its elimination will make things right again.

I see the public service that your'e performing for us now! By getting up on your box and sounding the air raid siren, you're alerting us all to take action! I hear you brother! I guarantee you, I and everyone else will follow your lead and vote Bush out in the next election!!! He won't get a 3rd term if we can help it, by gum!




Long before that, if we really want to defend democray, we can impeach him. He does a lot more harm than you seem to think. I guess we can agree to disagree on that.

Slider

[MTBME]

Sound familiar?

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp

[kernel crash]

Well you know what they say, If you don't like the weather, just wait a few years ;)

[Slider]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?

Slider

[kernel crash]

"Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?"

It depends. Who's doing the data processing and what's their motivation? It would appear that some of these alleged "experts" have been all over the place on this issues for a very long time. (And they still are by the way). Why should we assume they got it right this time? These are the same blockheads that said we were heading for an ice age 30 years ago!

[TrailBate]

Sound familiar?

Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned of "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation." Science Digest (February 1973) reported that "the world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age." The Christian Science Monitor ("Warning: Earth's Climate is Changing Faster Than Even Experts Expect," Aug. 27, 1974) reported that glaciers "have begun to advance," "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" and "the North Atlantic is cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool." Newsweek agreed ("The Cooling World," April 28, 1975) that meteorologists "are almost unanimous" that catastrophic famines might result from the global cooling that the New York Times (Sept. 14, 1975) said "may mark the return to another ice age." The Times (May 21, 1975) also said "a major cooling of the climate is widely considered inevitable" now that it is "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950."

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/will1.asp





If anything, this is just more alarming evidence of how much of a severe impact we are having on our planet. You can’t just say “oh well, the Earth was warming anyway.” We have actually reversed a cooling trend. How scary is that?

[off piste]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?

Slider







Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes

[MTBME]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html

[Slider]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?
Slider


Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes


Eratoshenes didn't even know what CO2 was. Our understanding has improved a bit, which is the point here.

How do a few measurements of a shadow cast by a stick relate to vast volumes of data, derived from measurements taken by hundreds of extremely sophisticated satellites?

Slider

[TrailBate]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html



Look at your own argument. 40 years ago scientists believed the earth was cooling. In that short 40 year span, we've turned it into unprecedented warming. Why would this happen normally? The sun is not hotter. It is not closer. The earth's core is not getting warmer. All the scientific evidence points to man. There is no way this could happen naturally.

[Slider]

"How scary is that? "

Or maybe its the earth going through some of its natural processes that we don't yet fully understand. But how can that be? We are man. We have all the answers. We have it all figured out. But don't worry. If you believe this guy, the earth's population will soon be reduced by 90% as the earth tries to clean up its own mess. See how easy this mess all gets cleaned up.

http://story.seguingazette.com/drudge.html



So let's burn a few animals in offering to the gods. Maybe sacrifice a firstborn or two. I mean, that is what the Greeks would have done.

Slider

[TrailBate]

Nah, let's do what the Mayans did: Sacrifice some virgins at the top of a temple, and let the blood flow down the steps.

[MTBME]

I am not a scientist. Neither are you. This is not my field of expertise. Nor yours. I don't pretend to understand all the various theories and angles to this subject. I leave that up to the "experts". But lets not kid ourselves. The experts do not agree on the root cause of this problem. Nor do they agree on man's role, or on a solution. So you can insist on getting your last words in on the subject but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid than anybody elses.

[off piste]

Are you saying three decades of vastly increased and improved global remote sensing and data processing has been meaningless?
Slider


Just because electronic sensing has developed over 30 years doesn't mean data collection methods before that are vastly inferior:

The exact size of the stadion he used is no longer known (the common Attic stadion was about 185 m), but it is generally believed that Eratosthenes' value corresponds to 39,690 km. The circumference of the Earth around the poles is now measured at around 40,008 km.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eratosthenes


Eratoshenes didn't even know what CO2 was. Our understanding has improved a bit, which is the point here.

How do a few measurements of a shadow cast by a stick relate to vast volumes of data, derived from measurements taken by hundreds of extremely sophisticated satellites?

Slider






I was using that as an example that just because a data collection method pre-dates fancy electronic apparatus, doen't make it any less valid.

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology? I couldn't find that, but granted I didn't do hours of research. All I found was similar to the following:

Polar orbiting satellites provide soundings of temperature and moisture throughout the depth of the atmosphere. Compared with similar data from radiosondes, the satellite data has the advantage that coverage is global, however the accuracy and resolution is not as good.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weather_forecast

A radiosounde, I found was a weather balloon, which were first used in 1936, and are concidered more accurate than the new-fangled satellites.

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Seems to me there is an unlimited supply of hydrogen atoms to blast and create energy with no negative effect upon earth's ozone layer and greenhouse gas supply. This is a no brainer.

[Slider]

I am not a scientist. Neither are you. This is not my field of expertise. Nor yours. I don't pretend to understand all the various theories and angles to this subject. I leave that up to the "experts". But lets not kid ourselves. The experts do not agree on the root cause of this problem. Nor do they agree on man's role, or on a solution. So you can insist on getting your last words in on the subject but it doesn't make your arguments any more valid than anybody elses.



Not true at all. The vast majority of people doing direct climate research agree that warming is a problem, and man is a primary cause. Hit the site for any major climate research group: NASA, NOAA, AES, all the universtity affilaites like Scripps, WHOI, NCAR, etc. All of them say the same thing. See the take on consensus in the Crichton rant. What consensus do you suppose he is taking offense to?

Now, you can always find a few contrarians. More power to them, as they try to make their case. Does that mean we also have to think that maybe the extraterrestrials are the true cause? Perhaps it really is the Iluminati after all? Or, per people like Pat Roberts, maybe we just don't pray enough?

You really gotta filter in these days of info overload. The whole idea that there's not a consensus comes from those who simply don't read close enough to grasp the weight of the evidence. We are all pretty skeptical these days, but there is a baby in that bath water. Careful before you pull the plug on all the reliable info that is available.

Slider

[off piste]

Nah, let's do what the Mayans did: Sacrifice some virgins at the top of a temple, and let the blood flow down the steps.


Is that how they stock up Heaven for the Muslims?

[Slider]

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology?

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.


You have to differentiate between climate and weather. Weather is a day to day thing, and trends that short term are far harder to predict than the far longer ones related to climate.

I don't know where that Wikipedia thing comes from, but it is a simplistic representation of a vast field of study. NASA is a great source. Plug "remote sensing" into the NASA search field. Here are a few links retrieved that way:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Remote_Sensing.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radar.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_What_is_Remote_Sensing.html

Slider

[off piste]

Can you help me out and provide some cites that state that what we have in place equates to vastly more accurate meterology?

While the ability to gather data has no doubt improved 1000's of times over in the 3 decades in question, the fact that the forecasters still can't predict accuratly what will happen 3 days out leaves me wondering if the ability to crunch this data into meaningful results is all that different than i't ever been.


You have to differentiate between climate and weather. Weather is a day to day thing, and trends that short term are far harder to predict than the far longer ones related to climate.

I don't know where that Wikipedia thing comes from, but it is a simplistic representation of a vast field of study. NASA is a great source. Plug "remote sensing" into the NASA search field. Here are a few links retrieved that way:

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/F_Remote_Sensing.html

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/fact_sheets/radar.pdf

http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/k-4/home/F_What_is_Remote_Sensing.html

Slider



Thanks for the links -- lots to peruse there.

[BG]

http://www.ivu.org/religion/articles/argument3.html

2. The Environmental Argument against meat-eating

Many of the world's massive environmental problems could be solved by the reduction or elimination of meat-eating, including global warming, loss of topsoil, loss of rainforests and species extinction.

The temperature of the earth is rising. This global warming, known as "the greenhouse effect," results primarily from carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, such as oil and natural gas. Three times more fossil fuels must be burned to produce a meat-centered diet than for a meat-free diet. If people stopped eating meat, the threat of higher world temperatures would be vastly diminished.

Trees, and especially the old-growth forests, are essential to the survival of the planet. Their destruction is a major cause of global warming and top soil loss. Both of these effects lead to diminished food production. Meat-eating is the number one driving force for the destruction of these forests. Two-hundred and sixty million acres of U.S. forestland has been cleared for cropland to produce the meat-centered diet. Fifty-five square feet of tropical rainforest is consumed to produce every quarter-pound of rainforest beef. An alarming 75% of all U.S. topsoil has been lost to date. Eighty-five percent of this loss is directly related to livestock raising.

Another devastating result of deforestation is the loss of plant and animal species. Each year 1,000 species are eliminated due to destruction of tropical rainforests for meat grazing and other uses. The rate is growing yearly.

To keep up with U.S. consumption, 300 million pounds of meat are imported annually from Central and South America. This economic incentive impels these nations to cut down their forests to make more pastureland. The short-term gain ignores the long-term, irreparable harm to the earth's ecosystem. In effect these countries are being drained of their resources to put meat on the table of Americans while 75% of all Central American children under the age of five are undernourished.


Solved...it's you damn meat eating bastards.

BG

[off piste]

it's all making sense now:

http://www.periniranch.com/mediakit/hi-cover1.jpg

[BG]

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/globalwarming_study/sr20041108.asp


Yep, it's meat and politics.

BG

[GeepNutt]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/04/060404150343.0ufe6r2g.html

[Slider]

http://www.freemarketproject.org/specialreports/2004/globalwarming_study/sr20041108.asp


Yep, it's meat and politics.

BG


There's a nice unbiased piece. Gotta admit, Fox RULES when to comes to balance.

This is sarcasm, in case you were unclear. These are culled from the story:

"Thousands of scientists challenge the thinking behind this new treaty, but the opposite view is in force on network news shows. "

"Many reputable scientists argue the entire foundation for global warming is questionable. Even many warming supporters raise questions about the extent of mankind’s contribution to the possible problem."

"Scientists have been debating the reality of climate change and its potential impact for years."

Note that there is not one single piece of support for this multiply repeated claim. No attribution, no research citation, nothing other than the claim itself. This is not only bad science, but incompetent journalism, much like the stuff they are claiming the media to be passing off.

In summary, sort of, it says this: "If you didn’t know any better, you would think climate change already is a problem of Biblical proportions."

If you didn't know any better, you might think this was another incredibly balanced piece of science with no agenda behind it at all. Not knowing any better is what they're counting on.

Slider

[Mr_Cheeze]

Global Warming? Not so fast. (http://www.theonion.com/2056-06-22/news/6/)

[Slider]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/04/04/060404150343.0ufe6r2g.html


Did you read the Colorado study that this refers to? It isn't about whether hurricanes are linked to global warming, but only about whether we can prove it from the existing body of research. It says nothing about whether it may be possible, or seems to make sense, only that is hasn't yet been proven.

But the final line is the most telling. It says: "There are also much, much better ways to justify climate mitigation policies than with hurricanes."

Just so you don't miss the point, they're saying global warming is a problem, but there are more easily demonstrated threats to us than worse hurricanes, so use the easier connections to justify changes in policy.

Slider

[BG]

http://differentriver.com/archives/2006/03/07/global-warming-causes-record-snowfall-right/

There's more proof.
Yep, it's meat and politics and snow.

BG

[Slider]

Not sure I see his point. Snow in places where it has not recently fallen can easily be part of the huge body of evidence for global warming. Because this fellow doesn't understand the connection, it can't be true, I guess.

Slider

[BG]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG

[Slider]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider

[BG]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider

So your saying we will all become Hindu because of this global warming thing? I was hoping to go Chinese.

BG

[Slider]

So your saying we will all become Hindu because of this global warming thing? I was hoping to go Chinese.
BG


You can go Chinese, but takeout only. And you have to walk. And the walking will be through the worst hurricanes ever.

Slider

[FriedRys]

"In Rhode Island, production agriculture is a $78 million annual industry, three-fourths of which comes from crops. The major crops are silage, potatoes, and hay. Climate change could reduce potato yields by 30-66%. Silage, hay, and pasture yields could fall as much as 39%."

Damn it, there goes the potatoes too. No meat if we want to help stop global warming, no potatoes if we don't...
Might as well let the end come.
Beer, maybe that's good for the environment. Naw, that's just a "Satanic Liquid." Damn Satanic Liquids, Satanic Gases...what the hell.

BG


Time to face the facts, BG. We're talking a vegetarian, car-less future, with plenty of time on our hands to take up lots of low-impact, creative crafts like basket-making.

Slider



If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?

[BG]

"If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?"

Damn it man...do it for the potatoes

BG

[off piste]

"If that's all the future holds, why bother saving the enviroment?"

Damn it man...do it for the potatoes

BG


It's already begun.......

http://www.spudstravels.com/Travel%20Archive/North%20America/USA/Washington%20DC/District%20of%20Columbia%20images/Protesting%20Potatoes%20-%20Landscape.jpg

[Mr_Cheeze]

Do it for the snowmen, dammit.

http://www.theonion.com/content/files/images/Nation's-Snowmen-C.jpg

[BG]

WOW...Iv'e never thought of it that way before.
What WOULD Jack Frost do???
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98232

BG

[TrailBate]

[Washingtonpost.com] Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether. Their accounts indicate that the ideological battle over climate-change research, which first came to light at NASA, is being fought in other federal science agencies as well.

[GeepNutt]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html

[Slider]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html


The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider

[off piste]

More proof the earth has been warming for the last 2000 years.....

http://www.thebostonchannel.com/family/8503574/detail.html


The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider


Because there were more Republican presidents in that time frame than Democrats? ???

[Slider]

Well, we've only identified the problem within the last 20 years. So a more accurate description would be that, in that time, our collective paralysis in responding to the threat has let it advance more quickly than it would have otherwise.

But, regardless of our response, warming would still be occuring. We can't turn the clock back on a couple of centuries of activity. We can only manage rationally as we go forward. Unfortunately, we're not doing that right now.

Slider

[off piste]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.

[catbbq]

The earth has been warming pretty steadily since the end of the last ice age, roughly 15,000 years ago. That is, until the last 100 years or so, when the pace picked up rapidly. Guess why that is.

Slider


You and trailbait's constant blowing of hot air?

[Slider]

Hot air implies there's no fondation for a given point, and that only applies to all those "warming does not exist" posts. So that means they'd be a far more likely cause.

Slider

[Slider]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.


Just announced today. 0 interest on Ford hybrid SUVs. It has me thinking about it.

Slider

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/06/ford_offering_interest_free_loans_on_hybrid_suvs (http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2006/04/06/ford_offering_interest_free_loans_on_hybrid_suvs)

[catbbq]

There was a recent article in Wired about GM's engineers tearing down competitor's cars. The said they tore a Prius apart several years ago and immediately decided to not offer a hybrid. Too many things to go wrong.

The natural gas Honda Civic is still the best for low emissions.

[off piste]

I'm ready to drive a Prius -- if I could afford one.


Just announced today. 0 interest on Ford hybrid SUVs. It has me thinking about it.

Slider




It's a good start, but it only gets about 25-30 MPG. Plus, it's a Ford. I already own a Ranger, my 4th in a row, but think it'll be my last Ford. Besides, I need a truck, not an SUV -- but I want to park the truck and stop using it as a car and get something for mileage and emissions. Now, if Ford could come out with a reliable hybrid Focus, for a bargain price with 0%, then they have my attention.

[Slider]

Yeah, I guess waiting until the service life of the things is clear makes good sense. OK, back to saving for the Porsche. ;D

Slider

[GeepNutt]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....

[catbbq]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....


This is just more of Crichton's pleas for attention. Oh, wait, he didn't write this piece? Must be some Bush / Blair ploy.

[Mr_Cheeze]

Scientists blame sun for global warming


And in other news, scientists blame rain for flooding, ground for earthquakes.

[Slider]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm

From 1998....


This is just more of Crichton's pleas for attention. Oh, wait, he didn't write this piece? Must be some Bush / Blair ploy.


Here's what our own National Climate Data Center says on that:

Can the observed changes be explained by natural variability, including changes in solar output?

Since our entire climate system is fundamentally driven by energy from the sun, it stands to reason that if the sun's energy output were to change, then so would the climate. Since the advent of space-borne measurements in the late 1970s, solar output has indeed been shown to vary. There appears to be confirmation of earlier suggestions of an 11 (and 22) year cycle of irradiance. With only 20 years of reliable measurements however, it is difficult to deduce a trend. But, from the short record we have so far, the trend in solar irradiance is estimated at ~0.09 W/m2 compared to 0.4 W/m2 from well-mixed greenhouse gases. There are many indications that the sun also has a longer-term variation which has potentially contributed to the century-scale forcing to a greater degree. There is though, a great deal of uncertainty in estimates of solar irradiance beyond what can be measured by satellites, and still the contribution of direct solar irradiance forcing is small compared to the greenhouse gas component. However, our understanding of the indirect effects of changes in solar output and feedbacks in the climate system is minimal. There is much need to refine our understanding of key natural forcing mechanisms of the climate, including solar irradiance changes, in order to reduce uncertainty in our projections of future climate change.

In addition to changes in energy from the sun itself, the Earth's position and orientation relative to the sun (our orbit) also varies slightly, thereby bringing us closer and further away from the sun in predictable cycles (called Milankovitch cycles). Variations in these cycles are believed to be the cause of Earth's ice-ages (glacials). Particularly important for the development of glacials is the radiation receipt at high northern latitudes. Diminishing radiation at these latitudes during the summer months would have enabled winter snow and ice cover to persist throughout the year, eventually leading to a permanent snow- or icepack. While Milankovitch cycles have tremendous value as a theory to explain ice-ages and long-term changes in the climate, they are unlikely to have very much impact on the decade-century timescale. Over several centuries, it may be possible to observe the effect of these orbital parameters, however for the prediction of climate change in the 21st century, these changes will be far less important than radiative forcing from greenhouse gases.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html

[TrailBate]

HONG KONG - China evacuated more than 600,000 people as the strongest typhoon on record to enter the South China Sea in May bore down on the south coast on Wednesday, causing flight and shipping delays around the region.

[kernel crash]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.

[Slider]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


If you don't see the way that increased temperature affects every weather cycle on the planet, you must not get the idea of a closed system.

Ever heat up a sealed can?

Slider

[TrailBate]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


not necessarily. But the pattern of record-breaking storms sure does.

[catbbq]

HONG KONG - China evacuated more than 600,000 people as the strongest typhoon on record to enter the South China Sea in May bore down on the south coast on Wednesday, causing flight and shipping delays around the region.


The strongest typhoon on record since the records were wiped out by a typhoon 6 years ago.

[catbbq]

Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. Tree rings are not the best judge.

In their words "Based on the analyses presented in the original papers by Mann et al. and this newer supporting evidence, the committee fi nds it plausible that the Northern Hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the 20th century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium."

http://www.nationalacademies.org/morenews/20060622.html

Which right wing organization sponsors the national academies?

[Mr_Cheeze]

How is it that you conclude that the information provided here "clouds" the picture even more? In reading through the summary, it seems that this report is not intended to support or deny the existence of global warming as much as it is a treatise on the accuracy of scientific measurements within specific timeframes. You are reaching if you think that this is somehow proof that global warming is a concoction of agenda driven environmentalists.

[SteveC]

So now every storm is tied in to global warming?
I was waiting for someone to blame this latest rainfall in NE to global warming. I think it's coming real soon.


I've been waiting for someone to bring up the subject of global dimming......have we discussed this yet??

[Mr_Cheeze]

No, but I'm sure that somehow the Republicans will get blamed for it.

[catbbq]

How is it that you conclude that the information provided here "clouds" the picture even more? In reading through the summary, it seems that this report is not intended to support or deny the existence of global warming as much as it is a treatise on the accuracy of scientific measurements within specific timeframes. You are reaching if you think that this is somehow proof that global warming is a concoction of agenda driven environmentalists.


Your right, it doesn't prove anything. That is why I said "clouds" and not "complete disproves". I am simply pointing out that the scientific facts that many use to prove global warming are not actually facts but data that is open to interpretation.

The poke at the agenda driven environmentalist was just that, a poke.

[Slider]

Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. Tree rings are not the best judge.


Interesting interpretation that flies in the face of, literally, every analysis of the data set you're referring to. You and W are clearly on the same page, but the book has no text.

Exactly what part about the relationship between CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect is disproven? Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.

Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all.

Slider

[TrailBate]

from dailykos:

GOP Rep. Sherwood Boehlert, who chairs the House Science Committee, requested that the National Academy of Sciences conduct a review of the evidence on global warming. The request was triggered by wingnut Rep. Joe Barton launching an investigation into the research of leading scientists in the field.

The NAS report is in.


The academy had been asked to report to Congress on how researchers drew conclusions about the Earth's climate going back thousands of years, before data was available from modern scientific instruments. The academy convened a panel of 12 climate experts, chaired by Gerald North, a geosciences professor at Texas A&M University, to look at the "proxy" evidence before then, such as tree rings, corals, marine and lake sediments, ice cores, boreholes and glaciers.

Combining that information gave the panel "a high level of confidence that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years," the panel wrote. It said the "recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia," though it was relatively warm around the year 1000 followed by a "Little Ice Age" from about 1500 to 1850.

... it considered the evidence reliable enough to conclude there were sharp spikes in carbon dioxide and methane, the two major "greenhouse" gases blamed for trapping heat in the atmosphere, beginning in the 20th century, after remaining fairly level for 12,000 years.


In response to the findings, Boehlert responded remarkably sanely, for a Republican.


"This report shows the value of Congress handling scientific disputes by asking scientists to give us guidance," Boehlert said Thursday. "There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change."

[jakazz]

hey "trailbait and Slider" were u guys on debate teams in school? because u guys dig up facts like my dog digs holes in my lawn.....

Oh and I love this....(Banned by Right Wing websites) ;D ;D

[Slider]

Facts are good. Too bad more people don't recognize that fact.

Some people, here and elsewhere, can't tell the difference between spin and reality. There are lots of people willing to take advantage of them. That's the reason we're here debating one of the most well-established facts in atmospheric science. Since the fact of global warming doesn't fit into the political objectives of those who'd put short term profit over sane policy, and since not enough people explore the facts before they subscribe to a given perspective, we'll continue to rape the planet and make our own future a lot harder.

Slider

[SteveC]

Verry interesting.......

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/sun/dimming.html

[catbbq]

Interesting interpretation that flies in the face of, literally, every analysis of the data set you're referring to. You and W are clearly on the same page, but the book has no text.



Do you know what "literally" means?


Exactly what part about the relationship between CO2 and the Greenhouse Effect is disproven?


None. I didn't mention CO2 or the greenhouse effect or anything being disproven.


Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.


What are you talking about? I am talking about a recent interpretation of the facts.



Last question: How are you more qualified than the legions of researchers who've made understanding the workings of climate their life's work? I mean this literally. Why exactly should your offhand, uncomprehending opinion have any weight at all, especially when you can't support it at all.

Slider


Call you legions, for you are many? I never claimed to be more qualified than anyone. Certainly not the doom sayers who have been predicting the end of the world due to CO2 for years.

Another fact is that I never claimed one way or the other the existence of global warming. I recognize that there are larger forces at work that I certainly don't understand. And I am not a thoughtless, mindless robot that unconditionally and with complete faith believes everything that the media, my parents, my church, my friends, my politcal party tells me.

There is big money in global warming just like everything else. That money sponsors research. That research finds what the money wants.

[Slider]

Do you know what "literally" means?

In this case, it means that 100% of the qualified researchers who've had a read of the dataset we're talking about says it fully supports the notion of global warming due to an increase in human-generated CO2. Use of literally here is, literally, apt.


I didn't mention CO2 or the greenhouse effect or anything being disproven.


You're right. Here's what you said: "Heard an article on NPR yesterday that clouds the evidence of global warming even more. "

If it clouds the evidence in some way, then it would have to weaken the foundation for the argument somehow. My question is what part of the argument, exactly, is weakend by the fact that we don’t have direct climate measurements from the pre-colonial era.

In fact, it clouds nothing, but in truth offers more support to the idea of CO2 related warming.


Did you really think, before the recent NSF/NCAR report, that Christopher Columbus was taking detailed temperature readings? Maybe DeGama, or Cortez were gathering CO2 samples as they trekked? The science, in no way, relies on those measurements.



What are you talking about? I am talking about a recent interpretation of the facts.


You said "Seems the scientists aren't so sure that the climate data prior to 1600 since no one was recording data at that time. "

Since this fact seemed to surprise you, I was asking, clearly, I thought, who you thought might have been taking those missing readings. You present it as if it has relevance to the global warming discussion, when none of the science is based on measurements remotely related to direct, historic temperature or CO2 readings. You can even ignore the temperature graph for the last 500 years and still make an argument for CO2's relationship to global warming.



There is big money in global warming just like everything else. That money sponsors research. That research finds what the money wants.


This is the crux of the anti-warming argument. It seems to come from some sort of cynical attitude toward the researchers doing the actual work. There's no foundation in fact for it at all. It only arises because the science itself is overwhelming in its detail, depth, and universal acceptance. Can't undermine the logic? Attack the integrity of the logician.

Do you know anything about the scientific process? The path to having a research paper published? Peer review? Duplication of experimental results? How about the researchers themselves? Ever meet any of them? Did you accuse them directly of lying, fabrication, or somehow else committing professional prostitution for the sake of grant money? Do you really believe that there's some sort of profession-wide conspiracy to deceive the world with a "sky is falling" story, when it would require the support of every single one of their colleagues from across the globe?

There’s no conspiracy. The scientific process is intact. Atmospheric researchers are not, en masse, fabricating their data of fudging their results. It is a tired, baseless claim.

Slider

[MTBME]

by woodsguy
"I just got back from seeing "An Inconvenient Truth". And I have two things to say.
1) Everyone MUST see this movie.
2) Al Gore would have made an excellent president."

1- Whats in this movie that we haven't already heard. About how we are destroying this planet, which by the way, there is still plenty of disagreement in the scientific community. and

2 - I doubt that. Your looking at the "new" Gore who is busy reinventing himself like a Madison Ave. marketing firm to make himself more easy to digest to the American public.

[Slider]

1- Whats in this movie that we haven't already heard. About how we are destroying this planet, which by the way, there is still plenty of disagreement in the scientific community.


For the umpte