An Inconvenient Truth !!!

Off-topic discussions about everything else
MarkDuffy
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby MarkDuffy » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:27 pm

Rubicon wrote:To get right to the heart of the matter, it is my opinion that CO2 emmissions are not to blame for global warming and that taking dramtic action to curtail these emissions could quite possibly create a greater wrong.


Could you please explain the surface temperature & atmospheric composition of Venus, Rubicon?

Scientists believe that it is caused by a runaway Greenhouse Effect. Are they wrong?

Rubicon
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Manchester, NH USA

Postby Rubicon » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:48 pm

First, I think you misunderstand me. I'm not suggesting that there's no such thing as a greenhouse effect. I'm saying that we don't understand a) whether and/or how much it affects global warming, b) whether and/or how much CO2 plays into the equation (i.e. their heating coeficients versus methane and other gasses), c) the concise rates of CO2 absorbtion by the oceans and ice caps, and d) who knows what else we don't know.

Second, regarding Venus that may very well be true, but it has no bearing on what we're discussing here, does it? The conditions on Venus (atmospheric composition, proximity to the sun, absence of oceans) are so radically different from Earth's that I don't see what it has to do with the price of coffee in Guatemala, let alone our climate.

Surely, we can study other planets and learn from what we see there. However, my contention is still that we are a long ways off from being smart enough to say definitively that the burning of fossil fuels is the predominant cause of global warming. It's a huge leap in my book.

Edit: And besides, I'm not saying anybody's wrong. I'm saying that the scientists should not pretend that they know. They're guessing too, but passing off theories as scientific fact.

MarkDuffy
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby MarkDuffy » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:03 pm

I'm just trying to keep you honest, Rubicon. The surface temperature of Venus exceeds the sunlight side of Mercury! :eek: It's atmmosphere is 95% CO2, give or take. It's surface pressure is high enough to crush flimsy landing probes, if the temperature doesn't melt them first.

It didn't start out that way, just as the Earth didn't. Venus is also a smaller planet than Earth with less gravity.

Venus doesn't have oceans, which is interesting. It might have had them in the past & Global Warming vaporized them. The Earth didn't have oceans, either.

It is an extereme case, I admit. However it is definite proof of the Greenhouse Effect caused by CO2.

As I've said many times, I'm not an alarmist on GCC, however, it is a problem & is caused by man. Alarmists are a good thing, cuz they make us think!

Has the Earth's climate changed in the Past? Absolutely! Should man be helping in the negative? Hell NO!
Last edited by MarkDuffy on Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Rubicon
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Manchester, NH USA

Postby Rubicon » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:18 pm

MarkDuffy wrote:I'm just trying to keep you honest, Rubicon.

Cool - somebody has to! :p


MarkDuffy wrote:it is a problem & is caused by man.

I don't believe we have enough information to assume either of those statements if factually correct. There are theories and hypotheses, but there's enough disagreement and counterarguments to cast serious doubt. I'm personally looking forward to a little global warming, as it was -30 deg F this morning not very far from where I live!


MarkDuffy wrote:Alarmists are a good thing, cuz they make us think!

Yup - as long as the thinking doesn't lead to actions that lead to "unintended consequences".
Ahhhhhh! There I go again. :eek:

MarkDuffy
Posts: 9232
Joined: Sat Dec 11, 2004 6:30 pm
Location: San Diego, California

Postby MarkDuffy » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:27 pm

Rubicon wrote:Yup - as long as the thinking doesn't lead to actions that lead to "unintended consequences".
Ahhhhhh! There I go again. :eek:


And there's the rub. Getting ALL nations on board, when it is not in their own self-interests.

What IS the correct political solution, cuz it is definitely political & economic? We cannot turn a blind eye, but the solution still eludes us. However, people ARE waking up.

I'm just suggesting to my kids to not buy land near the coast of oceans & river estuaries & Florida is not a good long-term real estate investment. And get ready to send their kids off to Oil Wars. Oil Wars could really "heat" up the Earth, if they go nuclear.
Last edited by MarkDuffy on Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby wodinoneeye » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:10 am

Christian IV wrote:You STILL don't get the concept of average values and the deviations around that average value?

I could give the counter example of this winter (the months of December, January and February) in Denmark being both the warmest and wettest ever on record (since 1873). Especially December was extreme: 1.9 degrees Celsius warmer than the previously warmest December and 5.4 degrees Celsius warmer than normal. Those values are really extreme. In Netherlands the winter was the warmest recorded in 300 years. Winter in Europe was generally (much) warmer than normal. And for Denmark warmer and wetter winters are exactly what's predicted by climate models in case of a world wide warmer climate.

We can both hammer each others heads with numerous examples of this type. That however proves nothing. And as you're actually perfectly aware of that (I'm pretty sure), your doing so can be seen as nothing else than a try to derail the discussion. Am I wrong?




It states "US temperature in February 2007 was 1.8 F cooler then 20th century average". Note - 'average' over a century. Thats including whatever extremes you might be talking about. The media hype states 'global warming' and evidence like this shows thats not exactly whats happening.

You yourself use as evidence 'In Netherlands the winter was the warmest recorded in 300 years.' but then ignore the obvious question of -- WHY it was so warm then (before the Age of the SUV) and why its been so cold since then.... Previous periods show similar fluctuations -- all again without the manmade cause. So why is it so hard to not understand that the same thing is happening now -- we are simply (hah) on a natural upswing and that projections misbased on too short a set of data of course will portent doom.

I have never said that its not getting warmer or fluctuating more, but that its no warmer than it HAS BEEN previously in the past (and at that time without this 'manmade' component that is being blamed/assumed).
Likewise extremes have happened previously long before this CO2 'problem' existed. (Your quoting anecdotal 'this years winter is very warm' doesnt detract from my point that such fluctuations HAVE been normal with or without the evil CO2).

To try to claim that what we are seeing is now 'definitely' manmade (ZE DEBATE IST OVER!!! AND DU ARE AN EVIL DENIER IF DU SPRECHEN SIE OTHERWISEN!!! !!! !!!) flies in the face of historic data. Natural trends have driven temperatures to extremes previously and are doing so again. Projections can be made using 'theories' and 'models', but the media only shows those that they have decided is 'the truth' and omit projections to the contrary. There is a political agenda at work creating this myth for its own purposes.
Last edited by wodinoneeye on Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:23 am, edited 1 time in total.

Dignitatum
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2006 4:13 am

Postby Dignitatum » Sat Mar 10, 2007 2:50 am

Well, you just write crap. You can't have a reasoned discussion. I don't think you know that one thing follows another. It is called a train of thought. One thing precedes another, the later thing builds on the earlier thing, one person grants a point that is obvious to both, or concedes something on the basis of new information. There's a logic to it, a building of something. It takes an agreement that there is a goal, not what the goal is, just that there is one. You do not enter into that agreement. There is only you. There's a record here of what happened, and it means nothing to you. You don't know how to build.

It might take some nerve, if you weren't a solipsist, to ask me a question and expect me to take it seriously after your abuse of discourse over my request.




Rubicon wrote:Digi -

Sorry if my posts impressed you as "viscous". It was my intent to aggressively assert my position, but not in a viscous manner. My interpretation of your posts is that you began with a smug, intelletually lazy comment. Then, when I cited clear and convincing evidence to support my original assertion, you overcompensated and attempted to cloud the central debate by overloading the discussion with unrelated details meant to deflect and confuse. I view it as similar to the tactics corporate lawyers use against plaintiffs by dumping hundreds of thousands of pages of documentation on them in order to make it impossible to find the important information. I make room for the possibility that I am wrong and these were not your motives. But I don't think I am.

I'll try to restate my point as succinctly as possible. I believe you are over-complicating a simple statement that I made by imposing all of these esoteric and meaningless conditions, qualifications, excuses, and reinterpretations.

Your assertions that these examples do not reflect the unintended consequences of a sincere attempt to right a real wrong seem absolutely absurd to me and not worthy of a response. I would sooner engage in a debate that the world is not flat, as I believe it would be more productive.

To get right to the heart of the matter, it is my opinion that CO2 emmissions are not to blame for global warming and that taking dramtic action to curtail these emissions could quite possibly create a greater wrong. My examples showed many instances where actions made with the best of intentions caused more harm than they alleviated. As Hanz and Franz would say on Saturday Night Live, "Hear me now, believe me later..." there are going to be a whole lot of embarassed scientists and politicians some day when this whole C02 debate is proven to be a bunch of rubbish.

This does not mean that I am against any action at all. As I've said earlier, reducing dependence on burning coal and oil is a good thing. We just better be careful how we go about it, lest we create a greater wrong due to unintended consequences.



I can end this debate if you would tender a simple yes or no answer to the following question:

Is it your position that it would be impossible that a series of decisions (i.e. treaties and/or laws) to curtail the human contributions to global warming would in any way, shape, or form cause greater harm than it would solve?

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby wodinoneeye » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:38 am

They never can answer a simple 'yes' or 'no'.

Rubicon
Posts: 188
Joined: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:29 pm
Location: Manchester, NH USA

Postby Rubicon » Sat Mar 10, 2007 12:52 pm

Dignitatum wrote:Well, you just write crap. You can't have a reasoned discussion.

Maybe, but at least it's readable crap. And surely you can come up with something better than that! How about, "I know you are, but what am I?"

And at least I have the nerve to ask the right questions, not take my ball and skulk home because someone hurt my feelings. I tried multiple times to bring this exchange back on topic, but "YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

My question was very much reasoned and logical. However, the answer would show that you are wrong, so you're once again skirting the real issue and instead asserting that I don't deserve an answer. You remind me of the professor in the movie "Back to School":

I have just one question... in twenty-seven parts.

C'mon, answer the question. I know it's beneath you, but do it for the children!

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby wodinoneeye » Sun Mar 11, 2007 6:23 am

Generations of crickets will chirp their hearts out and wear out their lil legs while you wait for your answer .....

Anyhow, good news for all those people who are sad for the Polar Bears who supposedly will be done in by the evil 'global warming'. Apparently (as told to me by my uncle who is a naturalist up in Alaska) they are a sub-species which have a brown/black furred variants and they survive very well in more southern/warmer/non-ice climes (there is a in between area where both types coexist and breed both white and darker furred cubs). It shouldnt surprise anyone who understands that those bears must have done something when the temperatures had warmed up thousands of years ago and the ice retreated/disappeared. I defer commenting about those who seem to think such times are mythical.

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Scientists Receive Death Threats For Questioning Man’s Role in Global Warming

Postby wodinoneeye » Sun Mar 11, 2007 10:33 pm

Scientists Receive Death Threats For Questioning Man’s Role in Global Warming
NewsBusters.org ^ | Noel Sheppard
http://newsbusters.org/node/11345

Think those advancing anthropogenic global warming theories are serious about their views? Well, an article from Sunday’s Telegraph should scare every person around the world about the zealotry and danger surrounding this issue (emphasis mine throughout):

Scientists who questioned mankind's impact on climate change have received death threats and claim to have been shunned by the scientific community.

They say the debate on global warming has been "hijacked" by a powerful alliance of politicians, scientists and environmentalists who have stifled all questioning about the true environmental impact of carbon dioxide emissions.

Shocked? Astounded? That’s only the beginning:

Timothy Ball, a former climatology professor at the University of Winnipeg in Canada, has received five deaths threats by email since raising concerns about the degree to which man was affecting climate change.

One of the emails warned that, if he continued to speak out, he would not live to see further global warming.

Why is this happening in Ball’s view:

"Western governments have pumped billions of dollars into careers and institutes and they feel threatened," said the professor.

"I can tolerate being called a sceptic because all scientists should be sceptics, but then they started calling us deniers, with all the connotations of the Holocaust. That is an obscenity. It has got really nasty and personal."

Other well-known skeptics agreed with Ball:

Richard Lindzen, the professor of Atmospheric Science at Massachusetts Institute of Technology - who also appeared on the documentary - recently claimed: "Scientists who dissent from the alarmism have seen their funds disappear, their work derided, and themselves labelled as industry stooges."

"Consequently, lies about climate change gain credence even when they fly in the face of the science."

Dr Myles Allen, from Oxford University, agreed. He said: "The Green movement has hijacked the issue of climate change. It is ludicrous to suggest the only way to deal with the problem is to start micro managing everyone, which is what environmentalists seem to want to do."

Nigel Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, said: "Governments are trying to achieve unanimity by stifling any scientist who disagrees. Einstein could not have got funding under the present system."

It’s getting scary out there, folks.


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


Via another link ::

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/11/ngreen211.xml
Last edited by wodinoneeye on Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

In response to the "The Convienent Lie".....

Postby wodinoneeye » Mon Mar 12, 2007 4:34 am

Books guaranteed to NOT be in Algores library......


The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0521010683/sunkencivilizati

The Little Ice Age : How Climate Made History 1300-1850
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465022715/sunkencivilizati

Floods, Famines, and Emperors : El Nino and the Fate of Civilizations
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465011217/sunkencivilizati

The Long Summer: How Climate Changed Civilization
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0465022812/sunkencivilizati


Image

Image

Image

Image

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Oops....

Postby wodinoneeye » Tue Mar 13, 2007 3:04 am

Frostbite ends Bancroft-Arnesen trek (too cold for global warming alarmists)
yahoo news ^ | 03/12/2007 |



MINNEAPOLIS - A North Pole expedition meant to bring attention to global warming was called off after one of the explorers got frostbite. The explorers, Ann Bancroft and Liv Arnesen, on Saturday called off what was intended to be a 530-mile trek across the Arctic Ocean after Arnesen suffered frostbite in three of her toes, and extreme cold temperatures drained the batteries in some of their electronic equipment.


"Ann said losing toes and going forward at all costs was never part of the journey," said Ann Atwood, who helped organize the expedition.

On Monday, the pair was at Canada's Ward Hunt Island, awaiting a plane to take them to Resolute, Canada, where they were to return to Minneapolis later this week.

Bancroft, 51, became the first woman to cross the North Pole on a 1986 expedition. She and Arnesen, 53, of Oslo, Norway, were the first women to ski across Antarctica in 2001.

But the latest trek got off to a bad start. The day they set off from Ward Hunt Island, a plane landing near the women hit their gear, punching a hole in Bancroft's sled and damaging one of Arnesen's snowshoes.

They repaired the snowshoe with binding from a ski, but Atwood said the patch job created pressure on Arnesen's left foot, which led to blisters that then turned into frostbite.

Then there was the cold — quite a bit colder, Atwood said, then Bancroft and Arnesen had expected. One night they measured the temperature inside their tent at 58 degrees below zero, and outside temperatures were exceeding 100 below zero at times, Atwood said.

"My first reaction when they called to say there were calling it off was that they just sounded really, really cold," Atwood said.

She said Bancroft and Arnesen were applying hot water bottles to Arnesen's foot every night, but had to wake up periodically because the bottles froze.

The explorers had planned to call in regular updates to school groups by satellite phone, and had planned online posts with photographic evidence of global warming. In contrast to Bancroft's 1986 trek across the Arctic with fellow Minnesota explorer Will Steger, this time she and Arnesen were prepared to don body suits and swim through areas where polar ice has melted.

Atwood said there was some irony that a trip to call attention to global warming was scuttled in part by extreme cold temperatures.

"They were experiencing temperatures that weren't expected with global warming," Atwood said. "But one of the things we see with global warming is unpredictability."

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says

Postby wodinoneeye » Wed Mar 14, 2007 5:37 am

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
National Geographic News ^ | February 28, 2007 | Kate Ravilious

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html



Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of space research at St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.

Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report."

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no [large] moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby wodinoneeye » Fri Mar 16, 2007 5:31 am

Certain pollutants cause Global Cooling.....

This will be very confusing to the Manmade Global Warming true-believers.....

(yet another example of this climate prediction business being more complicated than its been portrayed.)


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


GLOBAL 'SUNSCREEN' HAS LIKELY THINNED, REPORT NASA SCIENTISTS
NASA ^ | March 15, 2007 | NASA
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2007/2007031524529.html

A new NASA study has found that an important counter-balance to the warming of our planet by greenhouse gases – sunlight blocked by dust, pollution and other aerosol particles – appears to have lost ground.

The thinning of Earth’s “sunscreen” of aerosols since the early 1990s could have given an extra push to the rise in global surface temperatures. The finding, published in the March 16 issue of Science, may lead to an improved understanding of recent climate change. In a related study published last week, scientists found that the opposing forces of global warming and the cooling from aerosol-induced "global dimming" can occur at the same time.

"When more sunlight can get through the atmosphere and warm Earth's surface, you're going to have an effect on climate and temperature," said lead author Michael Mishchenko of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), New York. "Knowing what aerosols are doing globally gives us an important missing piece of the big picture of the forces at work on climate."


(Excerpt) Read more at earthobservatory.nasa.gov ...

Marius
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Oct 05, 2005 10:01 pm
Location: Vancouver

Postby Marius » Fri Mar 16, 2007 7:52 am

Wonderful Wodinoneeye,

I'm sure that part of this is pseudo science ... similar as to the scrud crud from the sycophants of Al Gore... but...

BUT>>>

The general gist of your findings are true (as we can tell at the moment).

Obviously human activity is a small to moderate part of the climate change situation. But the full cause ... balderdash...

We should be very careful as to where we spend our money fixing climate issues/contributing factors. Give away money to third world countries... ummm no not ever...(which is the whole purpose of that misbegotten abortion known as Kyoto accord) Instead, invest internally (in first world group) towards more EFFICIENT use of resources.

I'm certain others (fools) here have played the bleeding heart card to demonize anyone not willing to bleed the first world to death (through kyoto credits) to set up industry in the third world with standards that North America and Europe would have banned in 1950.

SORRY... NO .. we won't put up with that .. excrement of a deal.

Carbon Black industry in China and India et al ... and Economic decay and death in First World... No ... Not acceptable!! ... and the ohhh but they have to meet 2001 standards by 2050... or whatever ... laughable.

It's a sick joke based on moving capital from the first world to the third... drag folks down to poverty... rather than raise folks from poverty to prosperity...

...and the demon Gore hasn't given away his millions yet... Funny .. i wonder why not.

PS ... there are plenty of NON-HUMAN causes to global temperature shifts ... just goad me and i'll throw a few in...

MAX-1
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Postby MAX-1 » Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:38 am

wodinoneeye wrote:http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/na.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Average US temperature in February 2007 was 1.8 F cooler then 20th century average.
NOAA ^ | NOAA

UNITED STATES Climate Summary February 2007

The average temperature in February 2007 was 32.9 F. This was -1.8 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average, the 34th coolest February in 113 years. The temperature trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.3 degrees Fahrenheit per decade.

1.56 inches of precipitation fell in February. This was -0.46 inches less than the 1901-2000 average, the 16th driest such month on record. The precipitation trend for the period of record (1895 to present) is 0.00 inches per decade.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ot/warmest_winter
Winter warmest on record worldwide
WASHINGTON - This winter was the warmest on record worldwide, the government said Thursday in the latest worrisome report focusing on changing climate.

The report comes just over a month after the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said global warming is very likely caused by human actions and is so severe it will continue for centuries.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said the combined land and ocean temperatures for December through February were 1.3 degrees Fahrenheit above average for the period since record keeping began in 1880.

The report said that during the past century, global temperatures have increased at about 0.11 degrees per decade. But that increase has been three times larger since 1976, NOAA's National Climatic Data Center reported.

Most scientists attribute the rising temperatures to so-called greenhouse gases which are produced by industrial activities, automobiles and other processes. These gases build up in the atmosphere and trap heat from the sun somewhat like a greenhouse.

Also contributing to this winter's record warmth was an El Nino, a periodic warming of the tropical Pacific Ocean. It was particularly strong in January — the warmest January ever — but the ocean surface has since begun to cool.

The report noted that in the Northern Hemisphere the combined land and water temperature was the warmest ever at 1.64 degrees above average. In the Southern Hemisphere, where it was summer, the temperature was 0.88 degree above average and the fourth warmest.

The late March date of the vernal equinox noted on most calendars notwithstanding, for weather and climate purposes northern winter is December, January and February.

For the United States, meanwhile, the winter temperature was near average. The season got off to a late start and spring-like temperatures covered most of the eastern half of the country in January, but cold conditions set in in February, which was the third coldest on record.

For winter, statewide temperatures were warmer than average from Florida to Maine and from Michigan to Montana while cooler-than-average temperatures occurred in the southern Plains and areas of the Southwest.

For Alaska, both February and winter were warmer than average but far from the record warmth of 2003 and 2001, respectively.
Of course, this is why it is called GLOBAL WARMING or GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE and NOT American climatic change or American warming, NO?

To premise the argument of GLOBAL WARMING by comparing statistics that only focus on a single location provides a false and inaccurate account of FACTS.

Continued practice of this type of argumentation renders your point of view as slanted and incorrect, not only in theory, but also in intent.

The fact of the matter is that the overall global temperatures ARE rising. We need to be addressing not why but what we can do to stave off a global disaster/catastrophe. Failing to address what we can do to change our life styles and affect a change upon the environment globally, including climatic change, does not lessen the need to urgently make a change. By failing to make a change in our life styles, our environment will force us to adapt. And if we wait to be forced into this adaptation, millions of lives are placed in peril. Thus, this is a human issue.
Last edited by MAX-1 on Fri Mar 16, 2007 9:42 am, edited 1 time in total.

MAX-1
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Postby MAX-1 » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:01 am

wodinoneeye wrote:Generations of crickets will chirp their hearts out and wear out their lil legs while you wait for your answer .....

Anyhow, good news for all those people who are sad for the Polar Bears who supposedly will be done in by the evil 'global warming'. Apparently (as told to me by my uncle who is a naturalist up in Alaska) they are a sub-species which have a brown/black furred variants and they survive very well in more southern/warmer/non-ice climes (there is a in between area where both types coexist and breed both white and darker furred cubs). It shouldn't surprise anyone who understands that those bears must have done something when the temperatures had warmed up thousands of years ago and the ice retreated/disappeared. I defer commenting about those who seem to think such times are mythical.


You really are that shallow, aren't you?

To suggest that the polar bears can just 'get along' and 'manage' while their source of survival is threatened shows a cold hearted side of you. Even though there are other species of bears in this world, it does not justify the lack of concern for life expressed by your sentiments.

What shouldn't surprise anyone who understands, is that your assumptions completely debase the issue. These bears have evolved and adapted to live in that environment. Polar bears that exist outside of the arctic do so only in captivity. Otherwise they would live in the woods already. What you suggest is that they de-evolve.

And this is where I defer comment about those who seem to think such times are mythical. To entertain such a delusion would compel me to suggest that some people are still catching up on their evolutionary processes.

wodinoneeye
Posts: 1442
Joined: Tue Aug 10, 2004 12:10 pm

Postby wodinoneeye » Fri Mar 16, 2007 4:02 pm

MAX-1 wrote:You really are that shallow, aren't you?

To suggest that the polar bears can just 'get along' and 'manage' while their source of survival is threatened shows a cold hearted side of you. Even though there are other species of bears in this world, it does not justify the lack of concern for life expressed by your sentiments.

What shouldn't surprise anyone who understands, is that your assumptions completely debase the issue. These bears have evolved and adapted to live in that environment. Polar bears that exist outside of the arctic do so only in captivity. Otherwise they would live in the woods already. What you suggest is that they de-evolve.

And this is where I defer comment about those who seem to think such times are mythical. To entertain such a delusion would compel me to suggest that some people are still catching up on their evolutionary processes.



Talking out of the wrong end as usual ???

Sorry my uncle is a naturalist in Alaska (working for the gov) and he explained it fully. The Polar bears are just a sub species that is pure white and interbreeds freely with its brown counterparts. For those who cry rivers of tears over the 'poor' bears looming extinction, they can go buy a clue (or better a whole book of them) on the subject.

How did they ever survive 5000 years ago (and other time previous) when the earth was much warmer and the artic areas were largely ice-free???
Did the white polar bears just spring from the ground in some tree-huggers fairytale ???

(my uncle had other information about several other natural cycles that took place recently..)

As I keep saying, this is all natural cycles which nature has dealt with for eons before you meddling 'oh lets cry for the poor cuddly bears' opinions ever came into being.
Last edited by wodinoneeye on Mon Mar 19, 2007 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

MAX-1
Posts: 893
Joined: Sat Aug 21, 2004 11:44 pm
Location: Seattle, Washington, USA

Postby MAX-1 » Fri Mar 16, 2007 10:16 pm

wodinoneeye wrote:Talking out of the wrong end as usual ???

Sorry my uncle is a naturalist in Alaska (working for the gov) and he explained it fully. The Polar bears are just a sub species that is pure white and interbreeds freely with its brown counterparts. For those who cry rivers of tears over the 'poor' bears looming extinction, they can go buy a clue (or better a who book of them) on the subject.

How did they ever survive 5000 years ago (and other time previous) when the earth was much warmer and the Arctic areas were largely ice-free???
Did the white polar bears just spring from the ground in some tree-huggers fairytale ???

(my uncle had other information about several other natural cycles that took place recently..)

As I keep saying, this is all natural cycles which nature has dealt with for eons before you meddling 'oh lets cry for the poor cuddly bears' opinions ever came into being.

Look Woody, I'm not going to argue the mountains of evidence concerning evolution. Nor am I arguing against your uncle's experience. I do protest that you seem to be content with the extermination of a species because they simply are a SUB species. So are chimpanzees or gorillas. Yet, to somehow advocate their extinction because there are other sub species, is tantamount to what you're positioning yourself as. You may not see it, but others do. And for that we don't cry tears.

I don't need to hide behind other people to protect myself from ridicule. Shield my position as 'justified' because my uncle says so, or the bible told me so, or this one scientist that I found cites unproven and contradictory evidence. At least I have enough to stand on principle of doing the right thing, for the greater good.

See, that's the difference between the two of us... Principled - unprincipled. Humanitarian - inhumane treatment. Anti war - pro war. Truth seeker - convoluting deceptionist. Environmentalist - polluter.

You've picked your side, care to not shield yourself behind these 'other' people and just face facts?

On this issue, polar bears, yes, they have evolved to survive in the climate in which they live. They can not simply de-evolve. Their life structure is co-Dependant upon the very environment in which they exist in. Remove their environment and you remove their existence. The only polar bears left would be the ones left in captivity, cross bread and, indirectly, manufactured by man. That is not natural in any sense.

Yes Woody. You are a visionary. A myopic visionary, that is.

You can debase it by attacking those that you say 'oh lets cry for the poor cuddly bears' or them 'tree-huggers' but none the less it exposes that you don't have a logical point of view or argument. Attack the messenger. Ad homonym style.

I'm sure you too could de-evolve into your sub species if needed. NO?


Return to “The Outside World”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests