They can say what ever they want, but...........

The gas most responsible for "Global Warming" is not CO2 but rather H2O in the form of water vapor. It far outstrips Carbon Dioxide. Where does that come from..........? .............oceans, of course. Guess we need to cover the oceans to prevent global warming. Maybe Algore can crochet a global blanket. :)
Lou
 
But the vapor from the oceans is caused by heat. Polar caps melting makes more ocean. Watched a deal last night about that. Greenland or Iceland was loosing hundreds of miles a year of glacier. They showed where it was melting and making caves from the run off...the water was eroding holes down to ground and lubricating the glacier...which calved off into the ocean and melted. I also watched a show that told how much the earths crust( sea bed) moves in a few years causing islands to migrate. Has anyone measured the axis of the Earth to see if it is tilting? Wouldn't take a degree to cause spectacular results. The year my son was born..1977..we had over 30 days of below zero weather with bad wind chills, the next year we had the biggest snowstorm I had ever seen here...last year my lake didn't even freeze over and this year the freeze came early..then melted..then froze..then melted..now it's froze again. When Algore gets rid of his jets, big limo's, 4 or 5 of his 20,000 square foot homes..he will gain just a little more creditability with me. When I look at his actions, it tells me you can buy your way out of global warming.
 
In my Physical Geography class discussed what would happen if the global atmospheric temperature raised a few degrees. Most everyone easily pegged continued desertification of the already dry regions of Africa and the US. Some folks were pretty sure that the glaciers would be gone quickly. But some of us who had studied weather more were sure that the warmer atmosphere would hold more moisture and might result in glacier building rather than melting. It would all depend on the mass and temperature balance over the whole year.

If the winters where shorter but had more storms that carried more moisture up from the tropics through Hadley cells then there would be huge snow accumulations in the regions that already had wet winters. However, if all this snow melted off over a longer annual period above freezing then the glaciers would continue to melt away. Boom and Bust water cycles, but the areas in the rainshadow of the coastal ranges would benefit more due to the prolonged runoff of the snow rather than the short duration of any rainfall that made it over the hills. Most of the class said I was wrong.

So here we are 20 years later and I get a gold star for being a Smarty McSmartypants.

When I as real little we would take spring time drives in late February up through Donner Pass and around Lake Tahoe to check out the snow cliffs on I80. All through the late 1960's and the 1970's they had 20 to 50 foot snow levels every winter down in the valley. It was a little freaky to drive through those canyons of snow.

The problem with Global Warming that most folks don't get is that is has nothing to do with the temperature in your back yard and everything to do with the atmospheric temperature at the upper elevations where weather starts. There will be many regions of the Earth that will see little effect unless one of the atmosheric tools that generate weather changes significantly. So there will be folks that might have to get a snow blower, or stop watering the grass. There will other people in other places that will be killed off due to the lack of water or food or even the lack of land to live on due to rising sea levels.

Is Global Warming happening? Yes. Has it happened before? Yes thousands of times over millions of years. Are people causing it? We are not helping it to not happen. Is it normal for the atmosphere to warm up? Yes. It if it was not normal there would be no coral reefs, no limestone, no oil, etc. Can global warming be stopped or controlled? No. The Earth functions on a time scale that few humans can comprehend. Humans live by the day, while the Earth lives across millions of years. Anything we do in the next 50 years will do nothing to reverse the last 200 years. The cat has already left the bag. The cow has been out of the barn for a while now. We need to just ride it out and accept the changes that the Earth brings us.

People think the Earth is static and does not change. Anyone that thinks the Earth does not go through huge cycles of change needs to take a basic historical geology class.
 
... but now they call it climate change.

As waterfowlers, we see climate change every season and we have even seen some extremes this season.
 
As I stand here contemplating the mile thick sheet of ice that covered my home 12,000 years ago I have to laugh a little.
The scientists who cannot give us an accurate 10 day forecast want us to give up our standard of living to prevent a few tenths of a degree of average global temperature.

If the ice returned could they stop it? If solar radiation increases and tropical temperatures return to Montana could they cool it?

I always consider the motivation when someone is trying to stampede the public. What better way for a scientist to get more grant money than to have an imminent disaster?
Lots of little countries in the world and the UN in particular would love to see our economic power reduced.

Maybe someday the science will be there but that day is a long time in the future.

The news media has been reporting looming disasters as far back as I can remember. When I was a child the media was reporting the return of the glaciers.
The threat makes headlines, the repudiation of the theory that lead to the panic is usually on the back page of the paper if it's reported at all.

The dangers of pesticides, freon and even silicone breast implants were all greatly exaggerated and that harmed many people both physically and economically.

Beware the scientist who is following the TV camera around, he's not getting much research done.
 
It is a question I have posed many times. The period between the glaciers is typically fairly short on a geological scale. I'm in central Iowa and am not far enough South to have been missed by the last glacier. It was called the Desmoinsean Lobe because it stopped around the South city limits of Des Moines. For hundreds of thousands of years the weather forecast would have been pretty easy, just " Ice and continuing ice."

The historical past had a golden period of civilization, when Greece rose. This was at a time when temperatures were much warmer than they are now. The polar bears I think must have survived the complete melting of the Northern ice cap. They are still here.

The past also had a 300 year period of abnormally cold weather. It is known as the Dark Ages and featured the Black Plague.

Tell me what I can do to keep the world warming.

Th global warming alarmist's own data show that warm weather peaks before CO2 levels peak. To me that says that warm weather causes an increase in CO2 and not the other way around. I still do not understand how so many people can be hoodwinked into believing that CO2 is a pollutant when it is in fact a vital nutrient for plants. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. Will water be classified as a pollutant next?

Keep in mind that the next ice age is past due.

Bob
 
It is a question I have posed many times. The period between the glaciers is typically fairly short on a geological scale. I'm in central Iowa and am not far enough South to have been missed by the last glacier. It was called the Desmoinsean Lobe because it stopped around the South city limits of Des Moines. For hundreds of thousands of years the weather forecast would have been pretty easy, just " Ice and continuing ice."

The historical past had a golden period of civilization, when Greece rose. This was at a time when temperatures were much warmer than they are now. The polar bears I think must have survived the complete melting of the Northern ice cap. They are still here.

The past also had a 300 year period of abnormally cold weather. It is known as the Dark Ages and featured the Black Plague.

Tell me what I can do to keep the world warming.

Th global warming alarmist's own data show that warm weather peaks before CO2 levels peak. To me that says that warm weather causes an increase in CO2 and not the other way around. I still do not understand how so many people can be hoodwinked into believing that CO2 is a pollutant when it is in fact a vital nutrient for plants. Water vapor is the number one greenhouse gas. Will water be classified as a pollutant next?

Keep in mind that the next ice age is past due.

Bob
Click to expand...


It must be wonderful to wake up and get to be you every day - to have the whole world figured out in black and white. It must be a burden to have to explain such complex issues to those of us with lesser faculties. Please continue spending the time to enlighten us.

Respectfully humbled,

Tod
 
As I stand here contemplating the mile thick sheet of ice that covered my home 12,000 years ago I have to laugh a little.
The scientists who cannot give us an accurate 10 day forecast want us to give up our standard of living to prevent a few tenths of a degree of average global temperature.

If the ice returned could they stop it? If solar radiation increases and tropical temperatures return to Montana could they cool it?

I always consider the motivation when someone is trying to stampede the public. What better way for a scientist to get more grant money than to have an imminent disaster?
Lots of little countries in the world and the UN in particular would love to see our economic power reduced.

Maybe someday the science will be there but that day is a long time in the future.

The news media has been reporting looming disasters as far back as I can remember. When I was a child the media was reporting the return of the glaciers.
The threat makes headlines, the repudiation of the theory that lead to the panic is usually on the back page of the paper if it's reported at all.

The dangers of pesticides, freon and even silicone breast implants were all greatly exaggerated and that harmed many people both physically and economically.

Beware the scientist who is following the TV camera around, he's not getting much research done.
Click to expand...


Mike,

You are very right, the media serves as a poor mouthpiece for the progress of science. Sometime when you have a little down time why don't you pick up the IPCC report and read that.

Tod
 
Tod-

I don' know the answers, I have questions-
Was the weather stagnant and unchanging before modern man?

Over the last millions of years, ice has been the norm here (central Iowa) to the North pole, temperate time like we are having now being less than 5% the time. How does that figure in to it??

The alarmist say that oil companies are funding the warming detractors (which I have seen no evidence of) yet Al Gore makes more money as more people believe by selling carbon credits. You see no double standard here?

Same line- Many proponents are from other countries who want to tax us in the advanced world. Do you think a potential windfall may be part of the reason and not science?.

In the past mankind did better when the world was warmer. Why does it matter anyway?

Along the same line, ANY change in the weather has a 50/50 chance of doing good or bad over all, warmer weather helps much of the third world, or it did in the past anyway. The Mideast was garden spot as civilization dawned as was more of Africa. Is it not a bit racist to be stopping (as if we could) warming?

The CO2 data used to help prove man is causing global warming shows temperatures rising before CO2 levels not the reverse. If CO2 were the culprit, would not CO2 rise and THEN temperatures rise? Why does this data not show that global warming causes higher CO2 and not the reverse?

I gotta go do some work and breathe out some pollution and should not ask questions because IT IS SETTLED "THE SCIENCE IS IN." -quote by Al Gore

Bob

Also - The newspapers do a pretty good job explaining worm holes, black holes and viruses. How come they are doing such a poor job on this THEORY???
 
Last edited:
Tod,

Why do you assume I have not read the IPCC Report?
Almost every line contains the words "likely or very likely".
And Al Gore's name is in the first paragraph on the webpage. No politics in that august institution, eh?

You chastise Bob for seeing the world in black and white. The past Is set down in black and white. Everything he said is factually true. Not 'likely" to be true, it happened.

All I know for sure is that the climate will change and there is nothing I can do about it.

Are you ready to destroy your boat motor and go back to oars and sails to reduce your "carbon footprint". If so great, you are acting on your beliefs.

Don't force me to do it without a lot more evidence that it make the slightest difference.

Respectfully annoyed,

Mike
 
"Respectfully annoyed, "


Heh heh heh hahahahah......That's a good one.

The lumber industry has been the villain for so long that it is refreshing to me..to see....others getting blasted now. We have the same amount of forest in N.America as we had 200 years ago...forest growth outstrips harvest more than 2:1 today yet the timber industry is seen as one of the main culprits. I'm sure someone knows but what was the effect of Mt. St. Hellens on "climate change"? How about any of the volcanic eruptions over the last 25-50 years? It would seem to me that Mother Nature has a much larger effect than anything man kind could do. According to National Geographic, we need to start worrying how to stop the big ass-teroid that "could" crash into Earth and the super Volcano out west that will flatten Suttons house and calve the west coast into the ocean. Seattle, home of the "Green" movement...Hah..Parks was doing 75mph down the carpool lane because it was empty while the other 3 lanes were crawling along bumper to bumper. It sure seems that Green is Great..as long as it is someone else being inconvenienced.
 
Tod-

One of the bigger problems that I have with all of this "green" crappe is that it seems to be just a bunch of ANTI stuff.

If the "green" proponents really believed that carbon was the culprit why do they oppose land fills? Grass clippings, tree trimmings, and garbage could be locked away forever yet still be available for us to mine if needed in the future.

"Greens" seem to praise everything French yet the most "green" thing in France, NUCLEAR POWER, is opposed.

I've read that nearly 25% of the world's carbon emmissions is coming from coal mine fires in China. Why are the "greens" silent on that? I think that it is because they know that Western guilt tripping will not work on those commies.

I still think that this is mostly driven by the prospect of big paydays by the UN and others like Al Gore.

Even things like the new light bulbs, that we all will be reqired to use, have proponents who will make money off of them (GE). I, for one, am not even sure that they save energy. In my experience the do not last as long as incandescent bulbs, (my experience in the real world is not a good sample, I admit) but I have never heard if they subtract from the optomistic savings in energy the increased amount of energy that it takes to produce these new bulbs. They are also considered to be somewhat hazardous as waste.

When I was a child it was taught in school that Lake Erie was so polluted that there would never be fishing in it again.

I am not a dumb person. I know that fishing is great in Lake Erie and that they were wrong when I was a child. People saw a real problem and pushed for solutions. People can still be as wrong now as they were then BUT NOW there is a great investment by many in this man caused warming theory.

Opinion-

I think that there is only about a 50/50 chance that man is affecting the weather on a global scale.

If we are affecting the weather globally, I think there is a 50/50 chance that we are making it warmer OR cooler.

If we are affecting the weather globally, I think that there is only a 50/50 chance that the changes will be harmfull.

Fact- I do not want to pay taxes based on this. I, in fact, can be convinced otherwise. Show me something. Al Gore's word that the debate is over and the science is in is not good enough for me.

I interpret, from graphs that I have seen, presented by warming promoters, that current CO2 increases are caused by warming and not that warming is caused by CO2 increases. I've never seen any good refute for that.

Bob
 
Last edited:
Yes, the weather IS changing, ALWAYS has, and ALWAYS will.

It is the global warming, sky is falling, crowd that thinks that weather changes are not natural.

Bob
 
Amen, R.L. I look at "Global warming" through the lens of history. Climate change is an ongoing constant process. Yes it's happening, as was stated always has always will. Tod, look at which authors of the report still endorse it after the non-scientists got through editing it. Historically We just pulled out of a "mini ice age" and are approaching temp. norms for the period that preceded it. This mini ice age killed the norse colony on greenland and probably helped finish off the vinland settlement on the north american continent. Much earlier, much much earlier The movement of the sea peoples and the early achean peoples who violently impacted meditereanean culture circa 1600 bc to 1300bc was most likely climate driven. Volcanically driven climate change has had profound effects on civilizations and agriculture. examples being the year without a summer (Krakatoa) or the effect of the thera blast in that same early meditereanean period.

By the way if you really want to freak look at whats going to happen when the yellowstone super volcano pops. Its overdue , inevitible, and you're as likely to effect it as you are global warming.
 
I'm so happy that I stirred up such a nice bee's nest...

Eric, Mike and Bob. Yes the climate always changes, the rate of change that we are observing has not been seen before. The changes you are talking about typically take 1,000-10,000-100,000 years, the changes we are observing have occurred in less than 100. Yes Bob the "science is in", sorry but it is. There is ABSOLUTELY no debate within the fields that study climate and climate change that the changes we are seeing are anthropogenic. The "debate" is completely over, sniff the roses. We have moved on to the what to do about it phase.

Several picky and brief comments.

In response to Mike in response to the words "likely" and "very likely" in a report like the 2007 IPCC. To the naive reader they seem to detract and weaken the report. That is the language of science. If I said "if you step in that land mine you are LIKELY to get your foot blown off" are you going to stomp there?

As Steve pointed out, "Global warming" is a naive view. The effects of global climate change are varied and not always intuitive.

Yes Mike on my carbon footprint, yes I do work to reduce mine. I buy the most energy efficient technology and choose to pay more for it.

Bob, on flourescent light bulbs... you say... "I, for one, am not even sure that they save energy". You are not
sure they are more efficient? I don't know how to argue against a non-belief in simple physics.
 
Tod, I'll not dispute that some climate changes take the long period phase change you refer to but historically there are many that take place in mere decades or even faster. Approximately 7,500 years ago global climate was much warmer. Northern europe enjoyed a temp approxmately that of the present northern shore of the Med. According to the movent of the tree line on scandinavian mountains and things such as the change in mussel species represented on midden piles on the then banks of the thames the temperature dropped significantly in the matter of decades. We are now nowhere near that average temp. The Temp. drop of the late middle ages refered to as the Mini ice age or the Maunder minimum also phased in at a rapid tempo.

All this is fun but very few people address my biggest problem with the U.N. or our own home grown eco socialist ideas/solutions for the problem. None of them matter damn all without compelling China and India as well as numerouse smaller deelopeing nations to arrest growth. Thats not going to happen. The fear that it might could be enough to spur someone to make the unlikely attempt to take us down discussed in a previouse thread. DUCKBOAT sorry, just thought somewhere in this thread that word should pop up.
 
Tod, I'll not dispute that some climate changes take the long period phase change you refer to but historically there are many that take place in mere decades or even faster. Approximately 7,500 years ago global climate was much warmer. Northern europe enjoyed a temp approxmately that of the present northern shore of the Med. According to the movent of the tree line on scandinavian mountains and things such as the change in mussel species represented on midden piles on the then banks of the thames the temperature dropped significantly in the matter of decades. We are now nowhere near that average temp. The Temp. drop of the late middle ages refered to as the Mini ice age or the Maunder minimum also phased in at a rapid tempo.

All this is fun but very few people address my biggest problem with the U.N. or our own home grown eco socialist ideas/solutions for the problem. None of them matter damn all without compelling China and India as well as numerouse smaller deelopeing nations to arrest growth. Thats not going to happen. The fear that it might could be enough to spur someone to make the unlikely attempt to take us down discussed in a previouse thread. DUCKBOAT sorry, just thought somewhere in this thread that word should pop up.
Click to expand...


Lots of regurgatated information there, not any from the primary literature or at least not referenced as such. Yep, sunspots can effect global climate - must be an overabundance of sunspots that no one has noticed.

Maybe the whole "climate change thing" it is all made up by the Chinese to break us in advance of a takeover.
 
I don't think anyone disputes that we are having warmer weather. Let me go on record by saying MANS CONTRIBUTION DOESN'T AMOUNT TO A PINCH OF SHIT!! Follow the politics.
Every time some one says they are cutting down on their "carbon foot print" I just cant help running out back and cutting down a tree.
 
The China thing was mostly meant as a little bit of fun at this and the previousely mentioned thread. However the basic point is still valid and unanswered, All this breast beating, wailing and gnashing of teeth is silly and pointless until an answer to China and Indias growth and expanding "footprint" is found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top