So much for global warming.

#101
#101
Humans could survive 10 times more, but barely. One would most likely suffer from acidosis, as well as heart trouble due to metabolic disruptions that would result in calcium depositing in your soft tissues. Humans are not meant to live in such conditions. Even submarines try and keep it under 2000, and they have CO2 scrubbers, as well as relatively short exposure times to those levels.

Humans would not be thriving in a world like that. Fortunately, we could combust all the oil we have and most of the coal, and still not be there. Of course, we have to have things to eat, and therein lies the problem.
 
#102
#102
This 30-year downturn as part of a larger global warming event is interesting. IP, have you read much about it? The idea is that there is, in addition to the 11 year solar cycle, a larger cycle related to ocean temperatures. It seems like the guy behind this latest prediction is saying that there is a larger global warming cycle, but inside it, temperatures might decline (this time for 30 years), then begin increasing rapidly again to a mean temperature higher than the one reached 30 years previously, then a dip again, rising to an even higher temperature later. I don't know a lot about the science about it, but it is interesting. What I would like to know is how rapid is the climb back and what temperature is predicted to be reached. Is it the temperature that would be predicted as if temperatures continued to climb at 0.1-0.2 degrees C per decade (is that the 'right' range according to the IPCC?), or is it a smaller temperature per decade rise. If it means slower global warming then it would suggest more time to act...interesting.
 
#103
#103
IPorange said:
Humans could survive 10 times more, but barely. One would most likely suffer from acidosis, as well as heart trouble due to metabolic disruptions that would result in calcium depositing in your soft tissues. Humans are not meant to live in such conditions. Even submarines try and keep it under 2000, and they have CO2 scrubbers, as well as relatively short exposure times to those levels.

Humans would not be thriving in a world like that. Fortunately, we could combust all the oil we have and most of the coal, and still not be there. Of course, we have to have things to eat, and therein lies the problem.
Click to expand...

My point, except the part where you say; "therein lies the problem."

I didn't get that.
 
#104
#104
TennTradition said:
This 30-year downturn as part of a larger global warming event is interesting. IP, have you read much about it? The idea is that there is, in addition to the 11 year solar cycle, a larger cycle related to ocean temperatures. It seems like the guy behind this latest prediction is saying that there is a larger global warming cycle, but inside it, temperatures might decline (this time for 30 years), then begin increasing rapidly again to a mean temperature higher than the one reached 30 years previously, then a dip again, rising to an even higher temperature later. I don't know a lot about the science about it, but it is interesting. What I would like to know is how rapid is the climb back and what temperature is predicted to be reached. Is it the temperature that would be predicted as if temperatures continued to climb at 0.1-0.2 degrees C per decade (is that the 'right' range according to the IPCC?), or is it a smaller temperature per decade rise. If it means slower global warming then it would suggest more time to act...interesting.
Click to expand...

More of a roller coaster kind of hockey stick theory??

If we have time to act then surely to God we can act more intelligently than we have so far, so far it's been like moron central in Washington and nothing indicates they will do any better in the future.

Maybe we should act like we are cool about everything and not like we think the sky will be falling any time soon.

BTW, who is the leading climate researcher/alarmist who is now predicting a 30-year-long mini-ice age????????

If we are indeed facing a 30-year-long mini-ice age, wouldn't that be the shortest mini-ice age in the last million years of so????
 
#105
#105
A Critical Perspective on Climategate.

John R. Christy, a professor of atmospheric science at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, and Alabama's state climatologist, is an expert on Earth's recent temperature history, as derived from microwave sensors on polar-orbiting satellites. Though he has contributed since the early 1990s to reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change—the large collaboration of scientists that regularly assesses global warming for the United Nations—Christy considers the expert consensus overstated and unduly alarmist.
------------------------------------------------

What we've found is an upward trend over 31 years of about 1 3/100 of a degree Celsius per decade. -----------------------------------------

What's disturbing in the mail is the resistance to share fundamental data with the outside community. That raised a lot of suspicions and red flags, and now we see that those suspicions were well justified.
--------------------------------------

More serious is the paleoclimate reconstruction from tree rings and so on. Here there was an attempt to give an impression of a time series that the underlying data did not support.
-------------------------------

Well, the key here is that we want to know just how warm it was during the medieval warm period. If it was warmer then than now, natural variability would seem to be a legitimate reason for current warming.
---------------------------

Spectrum: Do you agree with MIT's Richard Lindzen that we are now just bouncing back from the "little ice age" that lasted from the 15th century to the 19th century?

JC: For the most part, yes.
---------------------------

It sounds like you're on the side of the angels when you say you want to save the planet. But if you're talking about preventing energy from expanding in the Third World, you're condemning people to perpetual poverty.

What's more, it's economic development that creates the cleanest environments we have. You don't find clean rivers or clean air in the poorest countries.
------------------------------
Click to expand...
 
#106
#106
g8terh8ter_eric said:
It's real easy, watch this.....

Climate Change has occurred since the Earth has been. Temperatures go up, and go down. Sometimes temperature are hotter in certain times, and colder in certain times. It's been going on like that since the beginning.

The whole global warming BS revolves around money. It's a political science, not one that will benefit humanity. Do I believe we need alternative fuels?? Absolutely, but not at the cost of making the average American household pay for it. If it's needed, the private sector will provide it.
Click to expand...

I approve of this message!
 
#108
#108
harry20reid20ever20been20wrong.jpg


capt.aa29134c063d46c48057aceba56a190c.aptopix_obama_climate_change_dnk105.jpg


4193214795_548e082d62.jpg


4193214815_284b7034ee.jpg


demStandards.jpg


alglobal----.gif
 
#109
#109
IPorange said:
He never backed up anything in his message. Temperatures have always gone up and down. People have always lived and died. Neither statement is very descriptive or pertinent, is it?
Click to expand...

He also said;

The whole global warming BS revolves around money.

It's a political science, not one that will benefit humanity.

Do I believe we need alternative fuels??

Absolutely, but not at the cost of making the average American household pay for it.

If it's needed, the private sector will provide it.
Click to expand...

Thus demonstrating that he completely understands the issue, what is you don't understand about it and I'll explain it to you?
 
#110
#110
If he understood how and why past temperatures rose and fell, and why the modern situation is different, he wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it is all BS. Sure, some nefarious characters are manipulating the situation for profit. That doesn't make the situation BS.
 
#111
#111
#113
#113
Just to throw out one of the reasons this topic has driven me to the point I (almost) never comment on it anymore is that there are no shortage of people that absolutely pimp AGW. It doesn't matter how utterly outrageous the claim if they can fit AGW into the scenario and get ANYBODY to buy it they'll cheerfully sell it. Are most of them either ignorant or idiots? Yes, but if they contaminate the process of rational study, thought and action on the issue then it's still contaminated. My latest example is Danny Glover, who had this masterpiece of idiocy about the Haiti situation:

"I hope we seize this particular moment because the threat of what happened to Haiti is the threat that could happen anywhere in the Caribbean to these island nations, you know. They're all in peril because of global warming, they're all in peril because of climate change and all of this....
When we look back at what we did at the climate summit in Copenhagen, this is the response, this is what happens, you know what I'm saying? But we have to act now."

If you look at this and dismiss it as "But that's just some moron actor's opinion." then you've missed the point.

I personally remain very skeptical of AGW and dismiss outright with malice AGW as portrayed by Gore/Hansen/et al. I listen to guys like TT because, basically, I think there's some integrity there. I may or may not "agree" with everything he may have come to accept at this point but I don't get the impression he tries to BS anybody about it either.

We need LOTS more TT's and a LOT fewer Gores/Hansens and Glovers.



​
 
#115
#115
IPorange said:
If he understood how and why past temperatures rose and fell, and why the modern situation is different, he wouldn't have come to the conclusion that it is all BS. Sure, some nefarious characters are manipulating the situation for profit. That doesn't make the situation BS.
Click to expand...

Because all the data is being based off of the past 100 years and nothing else. Your going to sit there and tell me that some scientific theory can be proven correct off of such a small data set?? I think not. They even manipulated the data set to show what they wanted to show, to do what, get government grants. There is not ONE single data set that has been used in the Global Warming argument that has not been tampered with to show what they want. Even the temperature readings that they get from these "so-called" thermometers are not correct. They have them in places that are going to register higher temperatures than what the temperature actually is. The one's that actually register the correct temperatures, they ignore. I tell you what though, I can't wait till this movie comes out...

AnInconsistentTruth

Gonna give us some good info, IMO.
 
#116
#116
g8terh8ter_eric said:
I can't wait till this movie comes out...

AnInconsistentTruth

Gonna give us some good info, IMO.
Click to expand...

More good info.

Climategate-I was the revelation that climate scientists crusading over global warming at East Anglia University had tried to censor inconvenient data and shut dissenters out of academic journals.

Climategate-II is the revelation that the 2007 report of the International Panel on Climate Change, saying Himalayan glaciers might disappear by 2035, was not science at all but idle, unsubstantiated speculation.
------------------------------

Climategate-II is also a sad example of green imperialism. Rather than accept the findings of foreign scientists alone, Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister, appointed a panel of Indian scientists on Himalayan melting. “My concern is that this comes from western scientists … it is high time India makes an investment in understanding what is happening in the Himalayan ecosystem.”

The Indian panel, headed by V K Raina, looked at 150 years of data gathered by the Geological Survey of India from 25 Himalayan glaciers. It was the first comprehensive study of the region.

It concluded that while Himalayan glaciers had long been retreating, there was no recent acceleration of the trend, and nothing to suggest that the glaciers would disappear.

In short, the IPCC had perpetrated an alarmist hoax without scientific foundation.
Click to expand...

Other excerpts:

“The IPCC review process has been shown on numerous occasions to lack transparency and due diligence. Its work is controlled by a tightly knit group of individuals who are completely convinced that they are right. As a result, conflicting data and evidence, even if published in peer reviewed journals, are regularly ignored, while exaggerated claims, even if contentious or not peer-reviewed, are often highlighted in IPCC reports.

Not surprisingly, the IPCC has lost a lot of credibility in recent years. It is also losing the trust of more and more governments who are no longer following their advice – as the Copenhagen summit showed.’
— Benny Peiser, Daily Mail, 18 January 2010″
------------------------------------------

The Coordinating Lead Authors in both chapters excluded available peer- reviewed papers which provide scientific evidence which conflicts with their conclusions in their chapters.

As the fall out from the CRU e-mails widens to include the IPCC reports, there is a need to assess and quantify the extent that these Coordinating Lead Authors (and those of other IPCC Chapters), excluded conflicting peer reviewed papers.

It is clear that in Chapters 3 and 8, this inappropriate behavior occurred with the result that a balanced scientific assessment of climate observations and models was not achieved.
----------------------------------

The (NASA) GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release.

This is not how the scientific process should be conducted.
Click to expand...
 
#117
#117
Ah yes, the old "It's cold somewhere therefore global warming is wrong" argument.

In other news, objects have been spotted flying around major airports, thus casting doubt on the scientific dogma that is gravity.
 
#118
#118
"While in other news, Al Gore has decided to drop the global warming scare, and persue the ellusive Bigfoot."

If caught in the wild, it could be worth millions.
 
#119
#119
Snakes on a Wii said:
Ah yes, the old "It's cold somewhere therefore global warming is wrong" argument.

In other news, objects have been spotted flying around major airports, thus casting doubt on the scientific dogma that is gravity.
Click to expand...

The Earth has been cooling for the last ten years, many 'natural variability' deniers seem to have missed that little factoid.

In other news, Al Gore was seen at an ariport the other day, thus bringing into question whether there is sanity or not.

BeecherVol said:
"While in other news, Al Gore has decided to drop the global warming scare, and persue the ellusive Bigfoot."

If caught in the wild, it could be worth millions.
Click to expand...

I saw him on TV during halftime of one of the bowl games recently, some guys were making fun of him, mean guys. :no:
 
#120
#120
IPorange said:
He never backed up anything in his message. Temperatures have always gone up and down. People have always lived and died. Neither statement is very descriptive or pertinent, is it?
Click to expand...

Didn't have to be descriptive or pertinent. It is an "observeable" part of science. There are records on weather patterns. I guess it would have been better if he would have included Ice Ages, non-Ice Ages, but that wasn't really necessary.

But its hard to deny that Global Warming is a huge (or will be huge) money making sceme! If your intrested, I will be selling discount Carbon Credits, they're cheeper than Al Gores, PM me and I'll tell you how to send your money to me and I'll get you your credits.:)
 
#121
#121
Oldvol75 said:
Didn't have to be descriptive or pertinent. It is an "observeable" part of science. There are records on weather patterns. I guess it would have been better if he would have included Ice Ages, non-Ice Ages, but that wasn't really necessary.

But its hard to deny that Global Warming is a huge (or will be huge) money making sceme! If your intrested, I will be selling discount Carbon Credits, they're cheeper than Al Gores, PM me and I'll tell you how to send your money to me and I'll get you your credits.:)
Click to expand...

You'll need some place to invest all those credits, wouldn't you like to invest in my frog gig factory?? :)
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top