Global Warming My &^^

[Dan Hodges]

Originally posted by Geezer
Somewhere I read a short article that hypothesized that we are nearing the end of a solar warming cycle and (as I recall) the earth not warming since 98 was evidence of this. I don’t remember where I read this and I’d like to find the article again.

BTW, did you see that PBS show about darkening skies. Supposedly particulate mater in the air is diminishing the amount of sunlight reaching earth but they completely ignored photosynthesis. If their hypothesis were true, then farms would be growing less and that simply isn’t the case.

Geezer

On May 16th. of 2006,delegates from 165 countries including the U.S. met in Bonn Germany to disuss the effects of mans use of fossil fuels and it's effect on global warming.It's not a matter of if there is a problem,it's a matter of how man shall deal with the problem.The National Academy of Sciences state that most of the global warming has occured during the last 50 years and is attributable to human activities.When scientist from 165 countries say there is a problem,one must conclude that they are not just blowing smoke.Without sounding like Al Gore,may I suggest the E.P.A.'s web site, as they have tons of information about global warming.No, you will not suffer macular degeneration nor have sexual fantasies about Hillary Clinton just from reading information posted by a government agency,after all it's your agency because you paid for it.I can only hope that Cody Griffin does not come to St.Louis and kick my a-- for posting this.

[Materi]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN



While it is true that the earth is warming many of the people in the debate are utterly ignoring one fact. I suppose that is to be expected; they are not earth scientists. Some of them are climatologist and meteorologist. Many are simply political hacks.

There you have it Dan.

[prometheus578]

"Thar she blows!"

When scientist from 165 countries say there is a problem,one must conclude that they are not just blowing smoke

I just wish that these scientists from 165 countries would come to my house and help me eat all this freeze dried food that they told me to store for the worldwide Y2K meltdown.
I have enough of the stuff to last me till they find the weapons of mass distruction that other world reknown experts told me existed.
Of course... the reknown scientists and experts have forced me to drink fluoridated water, while my tooth paste tube says to "supervise children under six to minimize swallowing... and if accidentally swallowed, get medical help or contact a poison control center."
The experts of the Dairyman's Association constantly promote milk as the "perfect food", yet 75% of the world's population is lactose intolerant.
Scientists..., Experts..., Bah!
Weasles, all.

[MAXIMAN]

The EPA updates their website about as often as Harley does there bikes!

As I have said numerous times...global warming is an irrefutable fact. The planet is getting warmer. So what?

Another irrefutable fact is this: It has been getting warmer for 30,000 years...since the end of the pleistocene. The polar caps extended into Texas in this age. What caused them to retreat northward 10 to 20,000 years ago could not have been man.

More importantly: Why have the global warming alarmists conveniently ignored this HUGE body of evidence? A body of evidence that has been widely accepted in the community of science for at least 100 years.

It doesn't matter what man does. The global ice caps WILL MELT. If man packed his bags...all 5 billion of us...and left for Mars...earth's polar caps would continue to recede....and some time farther into the future they will transgress again....(yawn) Why? Because they have receded and grown over and over and over...during the past 500 million years. This cycle is nothing new people.

Right now there is an organized move in the community (scientific community) to counter the junk science that the unwashed masses have been innundated with for the past couple decades.

60 scientists from across the globe have recently signed a letter. The letter states that the Kyoto Protocol is a waste of time because the jury is still out on what the causes of global warming are. Many of these scientists are my peers (earth scientists). Most are PhD level researchers and are NOT employed in industry (since so many of you discount industry science for some strange reason). These scientists are "independent"...working mostly in universities and government research.

Here are a couple links to verify the exsistence of this letter:

60 Scientists PooPah Kyoto

Scientists Call For Debate on Kyoto Protocol

These scientist cover the gammut of technical professionals. Many are geologists/earth scientists. Many are climatologists and meteorologist, with a few physicists, chemists, and others from numerous countries around the globe.

Suffice it to say, the debate on global warming is over and has been for at least 100 years. We have known for a very long time the earth is in a warming cycle and has been for about 25,000 years.

BUT...BUT...the debate on the causes of Global Warming are far from over. The issue is not resolved in spite of what media hype would have you believe. There is NO concensus in the scientific community regarding the cause. The only concensus is among the proponents of modern day alarmism.

BTW Dan, the EPA was created in order to find problems with the environment. Their existence is solely funded by taxes as you well know. If these people find no problems then they are out of a job. It's that simple. Question is: Would they "create" a problem to get more funding? Personally I don't trust. If you do then that is your freedom.

The EPA is a HUGE bureaucracy that has one goal in mind....to perpetuate their existence. They would be one of the last resources I would rely on for publication. If you want to read real open minded scientific research concentrate on publications from the academyand professional organizations. Look into subjects dealing with paleoclimatology and how it relates to modern day global warming.

It is quite strange to me that some in the EPA are screaming at the top of their lungs that global warming is caused by man's expulsion of CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the air.

Yet another HUGE federal agency with numerous scientists and a research budget larger than the GNP of many small countries is saying something quite different. The USDA has been researching this issue for years now and damn near every one of their publications indicates the causes are unknown. Now how in the heck can two well funded government entities be so polarized on the subject? This should be a HUGE pointer to the non-scientific lay person that there certainly is NO concensus within the scientific community concerning the causes of global climate change.

Here's the list of prescribed scientists I mentioned in the article above:

Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Dept. of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Dept. of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa

Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa

Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards

Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Dept. of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ont.

Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Dept. of Economics, University of Guelph, Ont.

Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant

Dr. Andreas Prokoph, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology

Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa

Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Dept. of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta

Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Dept. of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ont.

Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Dept. of Economics, University of Victoria

Dr. Petr Chylek, adjunct professor, Dept. of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax

Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.

Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta

Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Va., and Sioux Lookout, Ont.

Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.

Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary

Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ont.

Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z.

Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Dept. of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, N.J.

Mr. George Taylor, Dept. of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists

Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia

Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia

Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review

Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute

Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand

Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia

Dr. Nils-Axel Morner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics & geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, Calif.

Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville

Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minn.

Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS

Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health)

Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland

Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Dept. of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy & Environment

Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations) and an economist who has focused on climate change

Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey

Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway

Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand

Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of 'Climate Change 2001,' Wellington, N.Z.

Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut

Dr Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.

Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.

Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000

Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service

Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society

Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Dept. of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University

Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.

Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland

Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany

Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland

Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden

Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Calif.; atmospheric consultant.

Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Ore.

Dr. Arthur Rorsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food and public health

Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist

Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.

[wingnut]

Show me the money

So the bottom line is and has always been in the scientific, political, academic, and any other discipline you can think of “If you seek the real truth of any situation follow the money”. All of these parties have a vested interest in promoting their version of the “truth”, it keeps them fed. The media keeps eating by publishing conflict there by keeping us, the unwashed masses, entertained. We will not live to see the answer to this question. It’s on a scale we can’t deal with or affect and longer in span time wise than we can really comprehend. My 2 cents worth.

Dave

[LoserShoes]

Geez, all this when every one just knows that it's caused by magnetic hysteresis currents in the earths molten core!



Steve

[MAXIMAN]

Re: Show me the money

Originally posted by wingnut
We will not live to see the answer to this question. It’s on a scale we can’t deal with or affect and longer in span time wise than we can really comprehend. My 2 cents worth.

Dave

Precisely.

Proponents of "man induced" global warming have fervently focused like a lazer on the past 150 years strangely ignoring the past 500 million...specifically the past 2 million which roughly correlates to the beggining of the last ice age.

As I said before they are examining the data through a microscope when they should be studying this issue via telescope.

Please do not misunderstand me. Man's activities very well may have some very minor impact upon the earth's climate. The truth is no one knows for sure. But we do know that the earth has had numerous warming and cooling cycles in her history which pushed the polar caps as far south as the mid-west subsequently retreating to oblivion.

Here's an interesting fact most people don't know. I believe it was In the 1960's there was a test well was drilled in northern Alaska approximately 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle. Upon penetrating the interface between the permafrost and the ground (roughly 50 to 100 meters), chunks of wood were being drilled and circulated back to the surface.

Upon closer examination paleontologist identified the wood as having originated from an ancient species which was normally found in tropical rain forests!!!

Now you tell me ... what are the remnants of a tropical forest doing 200 miles north of the Arctic Circle?

Could it be that man is so presumptive to think that the polar ice caps have been in place...utterly undisturbed for millions of years? Could we be so infantile in our thinking that we can not possibly comprehend the fact that at some point in recent earth history (just a few thousand years ago) there was a tropical forest at the north pole? An entity normally found only in equatorial regions of the globe now buried under several hundred feet of ice.

Nah....that couldn't be how that wood got there? So let's just ignore it.

Later my lovely XSives,

Cody G

[MAXIMAN]

Here's an interesting article concerning forests at the polar regions:

Polar Forest

Pray tell...what type of global warming created an environment that was conducive to a flourishing tropic at the north pole 45 million years before present. Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think the internal combustion engine was in use at that time.

[MAXIMAN]

One more thing:

If you are really serious about understanding the forces that dictate global climate change I encourage you to go here:

USGS Climate Change Program

The US Geological Survey is a branch of United States Department of Interior. They study climate change from a little diffferent angle than a "weather forecast". The are concerned with the big picture and ALL the systems that may affect global climate.

Please go here and poke around. You may learn something. Be forewarned. There is an OCEAN of almost insurmountable data to conquer. Strong swimming skills are highly recommended.

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Dan Hodges
can only hope that Cody Griffin does not come to St.Louis and kick my a-- for posting this.

Right! You're 6-1...220 lbs and you bench press 350! ...and I'm gonna kick who's a$$?

You missed you're calling Dan...shoulda been a stand up comedian.

[Dan Hodges]

You being the scientist that you are,promise me that I will not become lactose intolerant like that other fella from reading all this stuff as I am already intolerant enough of my fellow man now and cannot stand any more intolerence.The April 3rd.,06 edition of Time magazine has a big spread on this subject which I read,but like all news magazine articles I do not accept it as the gospel,but as food for thought only.There is a lot of debate about the Kyoto treaty/accord and its goal of reducing greenhouse-gas emissions to 1990 levels by 2012.Even though it was ratified by 141 nations,the U.S. did not sign and for good reason as the U.S. would have got the short end of the stick.I am not a scientist,climatologist,meteorologist or geologist,but with all the debate swirling about,I do think there is a good possibility that man's use of fossil fuel could be and I repeat,could be, a source of some of the problem.Is it the end of day's,of course not.Will I see Al Gores movie,heck no.Is Al Gore an idiot,with all the debate swirling about,I'm afraid he might be.Having said all this,I shall now retire back to my garage and sniff some good ole V/P leaded race gas that I use in the Killer Kamaro and maybe,I said maybe, have sexual fantasies of Hillary Clinton.OMG!!!! One more thing:

If you are really serious about understanding the forces that dictate global climate change I encourage you to go here:

USGS Climate Change Program

The US Geological Survey is a branch of United States Department of Interior. They study climate change from a little diffferent angle than a "weather forecast". The are concerned with the big picture and ALL the systems that may affect global climate.

Please go here and poke around. You may learn something. Be forewarned. There is an OCEAN of almost insurmountable data to conquer. Strong swimming skills are highly recommended. [/QUOTE]

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Dan Hodges
,but with all the debate swirling about,I do think there is a good possibility that man's use of fossil fuel could be and I repeat,could be, a source of some of the problem.

No one can argue with that. It very well might be a part of the problem. But the flip side of the coin is it very well might NOT be part of the problem. So why spend billions of dollars to "solve" a problem that MIGHT exist? That is insane...and that flies in the face of logic and true scientific reasoning. It reminds me of the age old pratice of blood letting in the 17th century. When a patient was ill the "doctor" (if that's what you could call him then) would slit the patient's wrist to let "bad blood" out of the system. This usually killed the poor patient. But like the environmental alarmists nuts of today I can imagine the doctors reasoning was ..."SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!!!!!!" ... in panic toned voice. Well doctor...you certainly did something...you killed the patient!

We know for sure man's activity was not any part of the "problem" (if you can call it that) 45 million years ago or even 25,000 years ago because man wasn't even present.

Global climatology is indeed an emerging science. The endeavor is in a very infantile state. Science simply doesn't have the ability to predict climate change on a global scale mastered to the point that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding the causes of global warming today. We are not really sure what caused the episodes of warming eons ago. But we are certain of one thing...the cause was not man.

[MAXIMAN]

Dan Hodges wrote:

Will I see Al Gores movie,heck no.

Well count me in. I'm going. I haven't had a good laugh in years!

[Dan Hodges]

Originally posted by MAXIMAN


No one can argue with that. It very well might be a part of the problem. But the flip side of the coin is it very well might NOT be part of the problem. So why spend billions of dollars to "solve" a problem that MIGHT exist? That is insane...and that flies in the face of logic and true scientific reasoning. It reminds me of the age old pratice of blood letting in the 17th century. When a patient was ill the "doctor" (if that's what you could call him then) would slit the patient's wrist to let "bad blood" out of the system. This usually killed the poor patient. But like the environmental alarmists nuts of today I can imagine the doctors reasoning was ..."SOMETHING HAS TO BE DONE!!!!!!" ... in panic toned voice. Well doctor...you certainly did something...you killed the patient!

We know for sure man's activity was not any part of the "problem" (if you can call it that) 45 million years ago or even 25,000 years ago because man wasn't even present.

Global climatology is indeed an emerging science. The endeavor is in a very infantile state. Science simply doesn't have the ability to predict climate change on a global scale mastered to the point that any meaningful conclusions can be drawn regarding the causes of global warming today. We are not really sure what caused the episodes of warming eons ago. But we are certain of one thing...the cause was not man.

The National Academy of Science states that the earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree in the past century with accelerated warming during the past two decades and that there is strong new evidence to suggest that most of the warming during the last 50 years is attributable to human activities that have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases.The answer to this question is beyond me and I believe the jury is still out on the issue,however I would think a scientific analysis of the issue would be in order and cannot see why it should not be studied.Calm logic and true scientific reasoning is how this issue should be approached.To politicalize it or ignore it would not be in the best interest of anyone.Man has been cleaning up his act ever since he threw away his first handful of garbage,so this is nothing new.But you are correct about the big picture,earth will continue to warm up regardless of what man does untill that firey day when the mother of all fires burns it up. On this I rest my case and I'm going back to my motors as they do not talk back.

[MAXIMAN]

Originally posted by Dan Hodges
.......I would think a scientific analysis of the issue would be in order and cannot see why it should not be studied.

Well it is being studied...as we write. There are numerous projects on the board right now. But as I have said there is no concensus on the issue yet. The entire field of Global Climatology is relatively new. There is MUCHO research that still needs be done.

No one I know of in the scientific community is saying to "ignore it". Geologists have been studying the earths temperature ...past...present and future for well over a century...long before all this global warming hype geologist knew we were in an interglacial period of warming.

Now you have a whole array of self assuming experts entering the field. But since it is a multi-disiplinary issue concerning the earth, then it only seems logical that earth scientists(geologists) would be the leaders of the investigation...not every Tom, Dick and Harry that claims to be an expert or claims to be a some sort of scientist. Yet that is exactly the situation we now have and it is resulting in JUNK SCIENCE.

If you have cancer...which scienitist are you going to recruit to help you...and oncologist? a chiropractor? maybe a mechanical engineer?

The National Academy of Science states that the earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree in the past century with accelerated warming during the past two decades and that there is strong new evidence to suggest that most of the warming during the last 50 years is attributable to human activities that have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases.

And that surprises you? Here's the exact quote:

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that global warming in the last 50 years is likely the result of increases in greenhouse gases, which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community, the committee said. However, it also cautioned that uncertainties about this conclusion remain because of the level of natural variability inherent in the climate on time scales from decades to centuries, the questionable ability of models to simulate natural variability on such long time scales, and the degree of confidence that can be placed on estimates of temperatures going back thousands of years based on evidence from tree rings or ice cores.

So even the NAS admits hole in their own statement. In one breath they state "which accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community." Which I would contend that is not the case.

In the next breath they add that uncertainties exist due to the level of natural variabilty INHERENT in the climate. Well DOH!

This is exactly what I've been saying. Why is it that everyone is so damned focused on the presumption and NOT on the uncertainty? The presumption is man made greenhouse gases are causing warming. The uncertainty is we can't be sure about this conclusion. What a bunch of double talk!

Still yet EVERYONE KEEPS SCREAMING ABOUT THE PRESUMPTION... as if it were scientific fact! While totally ignoring the uncertainty of said conclusion.

Sheesh man...has the friggin world lost it's mind! I suppose a handful of people can claim the sky is green. If they say it every day...every waking minute....if they scream long enough and loud enough everyone will begin to believe it! If repeated ad nauseum it gradually becomes fact? Is this how science works?

I'm going to bed. I need a Tylenol.