PDA

View Full Version : Temperature Data support global warming was a hoax!



porsche060
08-13-2007, 20:57
Basically NASA and chief Global Warming hoaxer James Hansen were hiding a Y2K error which affected temperature calculations. NASA just fixed the bug and the warmest year shifts from 1998 to 1934

Second the same guy has found out the places where NASA uses to record temperature in recent years have been placed near AC vents and subpar locations which would increase the temperature artifically. His website shows pics of this

Data error found
http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/2007/08/1998_no_longer_the_hottest_yea.html

Must see-- This is what is used to record the temperature!
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

FishFood
08-13-2007, 21:27
Very interesting!

Now Ill sit back and watch this show down...

porsche060
08-13-2007, 21:41
The problem is this doesnt make the newspapers or weather channel because of $$$

Bad news sells, and b4 the global warming hysteria the weather channel was no where.

All this global warming stuff is about $$$. For example where I am, NYC wants a $20 congestion tax to stop pollution... It's for the enviroment!

porsche060
08-13-2007, 21:43
10 GISS U.S. Temperature deviation (deg C) in New Order 8/7/2007
Year Old New
1934 1.23 1.25
1998 1.24 1.23
1921 1.12 1.15
2006 1.23 1.13
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86
1939 0.84 0.85

Here’s the old order of top 10 yearly temperatures.
Year Old New
1998 1.24 1.23
1934 1.23 1.25
2006 1.23 1.13
1921 1.12 1.15
1931 1.08 1.08
1999 0.94 0.93
1953 0.91 0.90
2001 0.90 0.76
1990 0.88 0.87
1938 0.85 0.86

kevinj1
08-13-2007, 21:46
Very interesting!

Now Ill sit back and watch this show down...


I think I am going to lay low with you on this one--fishfood

Venio
08-13-2007, 21:55
Basically NASA and chief Global Warming hoaxer James Hansen were hiding a Y2K error which affected temperature calculations. NASA just fixed the bug and the warmest year shifts from 1998 to 1934

Second the same guy has found out the places where NASA uses to record temperature in recent years have been placed near AC vents and subpar locations which would increase the temperature artifically. His website shows pics of this

Data error found
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/08/09/did-media-or-nasa-withhold-climate-history-data-changes-public


Must see-- This is what is used to record the temperature!
http://www.surfacestations.org/odd_sites.htm

Both web site look quite unprofessional. The lack of citation of the data (merely mentioning GISS is not enough) and the assumptions made about the heat interference of the A/C units and the thermometers used to record the data not supported by any tests makes those web sources not trustworthy.

FishFood
08-13-2007, 22:03
You can disscredit virtually any news article if you wanted to.

And yes, those sites do look questionable, I agree.

Type "GISS Global Warming" into Google...

quarrydiver
08-13-2007, 22:05
find the true source of the information you're quoting...wouldn't surprise me if they had oil stocks. you can find "facts" to support any idea or theory on the internet. who do I believe? probably not an internet blogger. problem these days is anyone can just say anything and soon it becomes fact on the internet.

FishFood
08-13-2007, 22:07
find the true source of the information you're quoting...wouldn't surprise me if they had oil stocks. you can find "facts" to support any idea or theory on the internet. who do I believe? probably not an internet blogger. problem these days is anyone can just say anything and soon it becomes fact on the internet.

LOL!!! Any time any one denies global warming they are instantly a component of big oil. Lovely.

georoc01
08-13-2007, 22:23
Check out State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He annotates every source for the data in his book about radical enviromentalism.

What is interesting in the research for that book is that temperature rise in the cities of the world is in direct correlation to the growth of those cities. Cities that haven't grown show virtually no temperature rise over the last century.

This is from someone who does work for an Oil and Gas company but does believe we should wean ourselves from fossil fuels and our dependency on foreign sources of said product.

quarrydiver
08-13-2007, 22:33
i didn't say anything about big oil, just said i wouldn't be surprised. but i would bet that someone with something to gain is behind the "facts". I fail to see how scientists would gain by creating a global warming hoax. I do, however, see how someone could gain by claiming it was a hoax.

FishFood
08-13-2007, 22:34
i didn't say anything about big oil, just said i wouldn't be surprised. but i would bet that someone with something to gain is behind the "facts". I fail to see how scientists would gain by creating a global warming hoax. I do, however, see how someone could gain by claiming it was a hoax.

Scientists can make money in many ways. I wont get into it on a scubby board, but a simple google search will come up with plenty, hint hint ;)

quarrydiver
08-13-2007, 22:43
Michael Crichton is a sensational novelist. as anyone who has worked with statistics knows... you can prove both sides of an argument with the same numbers. and i would love to see the exploration of alternative fuels but the oil and gas companies don't have a great history of facilitating this transition.

Osprey
08-13-2007, 23:07
Except earth DOES go through hot and cold cycles naturally. Go look in our geology, the proof is there. We're due for another heat cycle. Whether people are hurrying it along or not doesn't matter, it's going to get hot.

94GTStang
08-14-2007, 00:37
Except earth DOES go through hot and cold cycles naturally. Go look in our geology, the proof is there. We're due for another heat cycle. Whether people are hurrying it along or not doesn't matter, it's going to get hot.

x's 2


It just so happens that this heat cycle fits perfectly with people's political agendas. I always knew that global warming was a bunch of junk years ago. Heck, I think the plants are enjoying the extra CO2. Let's also not forget the other factors of CO2 in the atmosphere: respiration, decaying matter, etc....

TAH 73
08-14-2007, 07:43
As someone with an Enviro-Sci degree I am not going to go too deep into this, but when i went to go see an Inconvenient Truth, I saw some issues, some spin, some using the numbers to get more of an impact, but there was something there behind it all with a bit of truth.
things like holes in the Ozone layer don't follow a cycle, they are a direct impact of people and the damage that has been done.
When you see glaciers receding as well, and some area's there has not been any precedent set for that. I agree that there is a natural cycle, but in my opinion it is being influenced as well.
For example with my winter job as a ski instructor in Whistler I have seen Blackcomb Glacier recede almost 200 feet and open up some ice caves that have never been seen at the resort before. They drew back so far that they had to move the bottom station of one of the lifts due to about 80ft of snow depth being missing off the glacier area.
This was a receding that has happened in 5 years.
When I see stuff like that happening I do get nervous.

creggur
08-14-2007, 08:11
I remember when I was in elementary school it was global cooling, and how we were headed for the next ice age.. I believe this global warming hysteria is all political.. I mean there is global warming on Mars too, maybe it's got something to do with the sun???

As far as cities growing and their temperatures rising, I would say that probably has a lot to do with asphault replacing natural terain and being a dark color asphault will...Well you get it...My 2psi..YMMV

yankeefan21
08-14-2007, 08:19
For example with my winter job as a ski instructor in Whistler I have seen Blackcomb Glacier recede almost 200 feet and open up some ice caves that have never been seen at the resort before.
Ummm - will you be my new best friend? :smiley16:

Agreed on all points. There was a lot of spin in Gore's movie [like glossing over the fact many Asian vehicles get better fuel economy by skimping on safety items like safety glass and heavy gauge steel to make their vehicles lighter - and also use diesel] but enough truth thrown in as well. There's no denying, for example, the fact that many glaciers have been melting and that the "Snows of Kilimanjaro" are disappearing.

fire diver
08-14-2007, 09:19
i didn't say anything about big oil, just said i wouldn't be surprised. but i would bet that someone with something to gain is behind the "facts". I fail to see how scientists would gain by creating a global warming hoax. I do, however, see how someone could gain by claiming it was a hoax.

Really? How do you think "scientists" are funded? Would the gov't give them grants to to keep saying every year that things are fine and dandy? Or are they more likely to get more "research" funding if they claim that all these wild numbers that the scientists report, could kill us, and they need to find out why.

When you dispute the global warming myth, you are attacking the jobs of 10's of thousands of "scientists" and "researchers". So they get quite hostile.

FD

porsche060
08-14-2007, 09:59
D.C. resident John Lockwood was conducting research at the Library of Congress and came across an intriguing Page 2 headline in the Nov. 2, 1922 edition of The Washington Post: "Arctic Ocean Getting Warm; Seals Vanish and Icebergs Melt."

The 1922 article, obtained by Inside the Beltway, goes on to mention "great masses of ice have now been replaced by moraines of earth and stones," and "at many points well-known glaciers have entirely disappeared."

"This was one of several such articles I have found at the Library of Congress for the 1920s and 1930s," says Mr. Lockwood. "I had read of the just-released NASA estimates, that four of the 10 hottest years in the U.S. were actually in the 1930s, with 1934 the hottest of all."

georoc01
08-14-2007, 10:37
Michael Crichton is a sensational novelist. as anyone who has worked with statistics knows... you can prove both sides of an argument with the same numbers. and i would love to see the exploration of alternative fuels but the oil and gas companies don't have a great history of facilitating this transition.

And I'm not sure why the oil and gas companies should be facilitating this transition. They should be out there maximizing their oil and gas production for as long as they can do it. That is what they do best and as an investor, that is what they should be doing, not trying to come up with alternatives.

Should Oil and Gas companies be investing in Ethanol production, growing corn? Hiring scientists to investigate Hydrogen as as a source? I don't think so.

What our government need to do in encourage domestic production, to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, use our tax system to reduce consumer demand for the production and invest in alternatives.

Instead we blame big oil, and increase royalties which discourages domestic investment, and raiser the MPG standards for new cars 5-10 years from now which just encourages people do drive their current vehicles even longer. And subsidize ethanol.

Harshal
08-14-2007, 10:58
I don’t know if global warming is true or one big hoax. My only question is then how do we explain the melting polar ice and seas getting warmer which in fact having the bleaching effects on the coral reefs.

I agree with someone who mentioned here, that earth naturally goes thru the heat and cold cycle, this was another interesting idea put out in front of me by one of my friends, as we rotate around sun, sun rotates around something and the then whole galaxy rotates in universe and we go thru those heat and cold cycles.

Foo2
08-14-2007, 11:02
I'm gonna go to a corner in the fetal position and rock for a while...

cgvmer
08-14-2007, 11:17
Ok so global warming is a hoax and breathing carbon monoxide is not damaging my health. OH good, now I can ignore my blood pressure and cholesterol level too!

porsche060
08-14-2007, 11:27
As you said it, natural cycles. Every day is a different temperature. If there wasn't warming or cooling everyday would be the same.

And the melting polar ice caps were written about in the 1920s. In the 1970s they wrote how everything was getting colder!



I don’t know if global warming is true or one big hoax. My only question is then how do we explain the melting polar ice and seas getting warmer which in fact having the bleaching effects on the coral reefs.

I agree with someone who mentioned here, that earth naturally goes thru the heat and cold cycle, this was another interesting idea put out in front of me by one of my friends, as we rotate around sun, sun rotates around something and the then whole galaxy rotates in universe and we go thru those heat and cold cycles.

porsche060
08-14-2007, 11:30
From Senator Inhofe

Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.
From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years.
Recently, advocates of alarmism have grown increasingly desperate to try to convince the public that global warming is the greatest moral issue of our generation. Last year, the vice president of London’s Royal Society sent a chilling letter to the media encouraging them to stifle the voices of scientists skeptical of climate alarmism.
During the past year, the American people have been served up an unprecedented parade of environmental alarmism by the media and entertainment industry, which link every possible weather event to global warming. The year 2006 saw many major organs of the media dismiss any pretense of balance and objectivity on climate change coverage and instead crossed squarely into global warming advocacy.

quarrydiver
08-14-2007, 20:21
it's funny that you mention oil companies shouldn't work toward alternative fuels but that is precisely the focus of their current propaganda. Wonderful tax breaks and the ability to take the resources of a nation for personal gain. poor oil companies... i'd send em a check but I think they've already taken it.

quarrydiver
08-14-2007, 20:25
what the government needs to do is pull their money out of fossil fuels and invest in infrastructure for technology that works like fuel cells. When infrastructure is there, consumers will consider a change (like what you see in demand for hybrids), and when consumers demand a product someone will fill the need.

quarrydiver
08-14-2007, 20:27
and although i'm from the corn state, i'm not afraid to say, in my opinion, that ethanol is NOT a good solution.

FishFood
08-14-2007, 20:31
and although i'm from the corn state, i'm not afraid to say, in my opinion, that ethanol is NOT a good solution.

Ill agree ethanol from CORN is about the worst thing we can do for our economy. Its not any better on the enviroment either. Hey, I dont like being dependant on the rag heads, but I dont want a burnt and toasted economy either.

fire diver
08-14-2007, 20:39
Then it's settled. Every new production car will be powered by a miniture nuclear reactor. The gov't will of course mandate that it be plugged in when not in use to back feed the power companies and help cut carbon emissions even further. See, it's a win win, nobody loses!

And at the same time, we can institute the flat tax. even better for everyone.

Except of course the millions who works for the oil company, work at the gas stations, or prepare taxes for living. But for the rest of us, it's all good!
FD

creggur
08-14-2007, 20:55
I'm all for the oil companies, heck I own shares of a few of them, and they have done quite well... Why complain about the oil companies profits when you can share in them:smiley16:

FishFood
08-14-2007, 21:16
I'm all for the oil companies, heck I own shares of a few of them, and they have done quite well... Why complain about the oil companies profits when you can share in them:smiley16:

Absolutley.

BTW, you sound just like Jim Cramer...

quarrydiver
08-14-2007, 23:01
If it were only about everyone sharing in the profit, I'd say go for it. But when the short term gain is eclipsed by the long term cost, I have a problem with it. I'm sure at some point people invested (or still invest) in asbestos producing companies, tobacco companies and many others too numerous to list. What's the big deal with chinese imports that kill your pets or make your kids sick? These companies are just trying to widen their investor's profit margins. This kind of profit motivation is what drives people to act like the executives at Enron. Unfortunately, not everything that is profitable is good for people.

DougNR
08-15-2007, 07:27
I fail to see how scientists would gain by creating a global warming hoax. I do, however, see how someone could gain by claiming it was a hoax.

I know I'm late in the process here, but have you ever heard of "publish or perish" with regard to the scientific world? If you don't publish, you don't receive funding. This leads to publication of theories that can appear supportable. Just another version of making data fit the theory.

quarrydiver
08-15-2007, 08:22
Believe what you want, I'm not in a coastal state. Enjoy the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes and flooding down there. Just don't come knocking on my door. Personally, I will believe the 90 some percent of the scientific community (not all of whom receive GW funding) and not the faceless bloggers who throw out spin like these posts to benefit their own bank accounts or egos. We know that there IS a natural cycle of heating and cooling but human activity IS accelerating it.

fire diver
08-15-2007, 10:05
Believe what you want, I'm not in a coastal state. Enjoy the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes and flooding down there. Just don't come knocking on my door.

You know, all the "scientists" who spouted about the global warming causing Katrina and predicting dozens of killer hurricanes every year look pretty stupid today. It's been quiet these last few years for storms. Still want to stick with that hurricane theory?

FD

creggur
08-15-2007, 10:44
If it were only about everyone sharing in the profit, I'd say go for it. But when the short term gain is eclipsed by the long term cost, I have a problem with it. I'm sure at some point people invested (or still invest) in asbestos producing companies, tobacco companies and many others too numerous to list. What's the big deal with chinese imports that kill your pets or make your kids sick? These companies are just trying to widen their investor's profit margins. This kind of profit motivation is what drives people to act like the executives at Enron. Unfortunately, not everything that is profitable is good for people.

This is one of the areas that people make big mistakes dealing with money.. You're letting emotion come into play.. I look at investing like buying a car, if you let your emotions get the best of you and get all excited about a particular make, model, color, you are more likely to get screwed.. I just take a step back, look at the facts, calculate the risk, and if I think it's going to benefit my family in the long run, I invest. Those companies are going to make a profit whether I "like" their business or not, so I try not to let the "like" come into the equation.

creggur
08-15-2007, 10:46
Believe what you want, I'm not in a coastal state. Enjoy the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes and flooding down there. Just don't come knocking on my door. Personally, .

I am in a coastal state and three years ago we had a lot of storms, last two years have been pretty quiet.. Yet again we see natural cycles in weather patterns. Some years hurricane season is busier than others...
I appreciate you wishing doom on coastal states though, very classy..

Rockhound76
08-15-2007, 11:03
I won't go too deeply into this, as I'm an employee of an "evil" albeit small, not "big" oil company. I am also a geophysicist with an academic background in both geology and marine biology.

Here it is: The world cycles. Get over it. Sea levels rise and fall and temperatures rise and fall globally, sometimes in sync and sometimes not. The geologic record, written in millions of years of rocks and hundreds of thousands of years of polar ice, supports this FACT.

Are there anthropogenic (is that a word) effects? The big answer is MAYBE yes, maybe no. The absolute answer is uncertain. Global climatologists are trying to extract data from what amounts to the quantum foam of their statistics and extrapolate those answers into statistical probabilities for the future. Most of their models do a poor job of looking back, so how well they look forward is suspect at best.

What the politicians and the showboat environmentalists and the Hollywood pundit do is exaggerate these "possibilities" for maximum effect. Bad news, like cars wrecks, draw a crowd.

What they have really done is create an environment where the dissenting scientific voice is ridiculed to the point where most scientists who disagree are afraid to speak up.

That is bad.

Does this mean we should ignore the "possible peril" of a human derived global warming cycle? Of course not. Good stewardship of the natural world is a moral responsibility of all humankind.

Instead of knee-jerking and screaming at imagined demons, we should work at finding ways to reduce our imprint on the environment without creating undue, maybe even worse, problems. We should support reasonable OBJECTIVE analysis of our possible paths and the subsequent long-term effects.

What we should not do is jump into blind-faith- feel-good -but -ultimately harmful solutions.

Ethanol? Good luck. It takes about as much OIL fired BTU's to generate a gallon of ethanol as that same gallon provides. At the same time, a gallon of manufactured gov't subsidized ethanol reduces the production of a valuable food stuff, it degrades the quality of the resulting gasoline blend, it reduces it's efficiency and for those of us with boats, it absorbs water and degrades fiberglas tanks (ruining engines and reducing the shelf-life of gasoling stocks).

Wind? Solar? Try calculating how many square miles of solar panels it would take to replace the energy output of a single Exxon station or a single small oil well. Drive by a wind farm and roll down the windows. Listen to the noise. Look at how big those things are and how much of an imprint on the landscape they make. Watch for flying bird carcasses, tho'--they kill a lot of them.

E-cars, fuel cells and hybrids? It take about as much oil/nat. gas/coal to charge them or to create them than they save. Plus, the batteries have to be replaced, recycled or disposed of with amazing frequency. Not there, YET.

Are there solutions? You bet. These solutions may included bits and pieces of the above combined with newer technologies, but they will have to be complete solutions not partial ones and not politically driven ones.

Oil companies are composed of individuals. Their profits go to stockholders, most of whom are regular people or retirement funds that benefit regular folks. There is no cabal of rich men gleefully wringing their hands and making plans to rule the world. That's just in the movies.

I still remember 1985 when the US domestic industry collapsed. When autom companies folded, the gov't responded with programs to help them. When airlines hit hard times, the gov't responded. When other nations dumped goods on the US at below market prices the gov't responded. When the oil patch suffered when FOREIGN gov'ts dumped oil in a deliberate effort to regain market share and their control of energy, our gov't did NOTHING--except restrict drilling and exploration, which have, btw, enviable environmental records when compared with any large industry. It was easy to ignore us, as we were BAD.

400,000 workers lost their jobs, there homes and some lost their families. Most did not return. Today, our domestic oil business is a shell of what it ought to be. Most of it's professionals are old and graying and thinking about retirement (I'm one of them). There is no second-line waiting in the wings. We're it, folks.

What next? I don't know. But, I think we'll need both a strong oil- business for the present and near future and a strong REASONABLE plan for the future. I don't know if it will have any effect on "global warming", but it will have to provide a replacement for what is a FINITE resource.

'nuff said...sorry I got long winded on this....

quarrydiver
08-15-2007, 11:18
If it were only about everyone sharing in the profit, I'd say go for it. But when the short term gain is eclipsed by the long term cost, I have a problem with it. I'm sure at some point people invested (or still invest) in asbestos producing companies, tobacco companies and many others too numerous to list. What's the big deal with chinese imports that kill your pets or make your kids sick? These companies are just trying to widen their investor's profit margins. This kind of profit motivation is what drives people to act like the executives at Enron. Unfortunately, not everything that is profitable is good for people.

This is one of the areas that people make big mistakes dealing with money.. You're letting emotion come into play.. I look at investing like buying a car, if you let your emotions get the best of you and get all excited about a particular make, model, color, you are more likely to get screwed.. I just take a step back, look at the facts, calculate the risk, and if I think it's going to benefit my family in the long run, I invest. Those companies are going to make a profit whether I "like" their business or not, so I try not to let the "like" come into the equation.

but instead of thinking about what is good for everyone, your emotion only has to deal with the short term good for your family. Too bad that not more people think beyond themselves.

quarrydiver
08-15-2007, 11:21
Believe what you want, I'm not in a coastal state. Enjoy the increase in frequency and intensity of hurricanes and flooding down there. Just don't come knocking on my door. Personally, .

I am in a coastal state and three years ago we had a lot of storms, last two years have been pretty quiet.. Yet again we see natural cycles in weather patterns. Some years hurricane season is busier than others...
I appreciate you wishing doom on coastal states though, very classy..

didn't realize that i was wishing doom on coastal states. seems to me I'm the one trying to prevent it.

quarrydiver
08-15-2007, 11:24
however, there are people that DO care about somebody other than themselves and they are the ones that opened their homes to Katrina victims as far away as Iowa. Personal gain for me? no. right thing to do? yes.

creggur
08-15-2007, 12:28
but instead of thinking about what is good for everyone, your emotion only has to deal with the short term good for your family. Too bad that not more people think beyond themselves.


I'm actually thinking of the long-term good of my family. Having a child next year and I'd like to give him/her things and opportunities that I didn't have growing up, and I'd like to leave something behind when I'm gone....Griping about an oil company does absolutely nothing for my familiies welfare, however financial stability does a whole lot...Sorry man that's just reality...

creggur
08-15-2007, 12:37
however, there are people that DO care about somebody other than themselves and they are the ones that opened their homes to Katrina victims as far away as Iowa. Personal gain for me? no. right thing to do? yes.

Didn't open my home, but participated in a number of drives to send supplies to NO.. You shouldn't judge others people level of "caring" just because they don't support a certain cause that you may be passionate about....A good chunk of every dime I make goes to charity, I try to keep it local as much as possible to help kids and struggling single moms..

So if I profit from "Big, Evil Oil", a portion of those procedes go to help those in need to get back on their feet.. Just because people are smart enough to take advantage of the capitalist system doesn't mean they are evil, or don't care about other people....Silly stereotype...

cummings66
08-15-2007, 17:23
I'd agree with you, to an extent. There are things out there that I would regard any person associated with it as evil, but that's rare. There are shades of gray everywhere and you got to do what you got to do. Even the bible says to take care of your own family first. IMO you're doing the right thing.

Big oil isn't always evil, but I do think they're hiding a few corpses here and there.

plot
08-15-2007, 19:15
nasa is the only ones to have ever recorded a tempurature? nobody has ever done independent studies with data from farmers almanecs or something?

creggur
08-15-2007, 19:28
I'd agree with you, to an extent. There are things out there that I would regard any person associated with it as evil, but that's rare. There are shades of gray everywhere and you got to do what you got to do. Even the bible says to take care of your own family first. IMO you're doing the right thing.

Big oil isn't always evil, but I do think they're hiding a few corpses here and there.

I don't disagree at all. There is certainly evil out there, but I'm not investing in anything illegal. I would think that all companies, especially larger ones probably have at some time bent rules or done things that are unethical. Having said that though, it's like you said, take care of the family first, that I will always do. I don't mean to sound cold, but everybody else comes second to that...

WB2GLP
08-19-2007, 08:58
Getting back to Global Warming....

Global Warming is the new gospel of the environmentalist religion embraced by such groups as Earth First. Here are two quotes that pretty much sum it all up:

Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs. —John Davis, editor of Earth First! Journal

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on earth, social and environmental. —Dave Forman, Founder of Earth First!

Let me be the first to say that I'm allergic to nuts; NUTS like these guys!!

Rockhound76
08-19-2007, 15:05
About historical temps: Relative changes in temperature over thousands of years can be inferred from ice and (some) sediment cores.

For absolute temperature readings from the last few hundred years, the 'average' temps published are suspect as are the data that go into them. The few truly scientific attempts at documenting temps were in areas that are today, "developed" into cities. Temperature readings in cities are/were measurably higher (during any era) due to urban heat-island affects. These effects are much more prevalent today than in the past, so average temperture readings would be higher anywhere in modern times, exclusive of places that have never be developed (national forests, etc.).

There have been attempts to normalize historical data to adjust for these effects, but these attempts have been met with scorn by the eco-activist community, as they generally show no change.

In a broader sense, geologic measures, using stratigraphy and relative abundance of nannofossils demonstrate a high rate of cyclicity in global eustacy, a measure of relative sea-level change. It might be suprising to some to learn how often and how much sea level rises and falls.

These data give hints about temperature, but a strong correlation to eustacy has not been established. During periods of high polar melt rates, it looks like global seawater temps GO DOWN, due to the rapid dumping of cold polar water into the system.

It is all more complex than I am capable of processing. It is also more complex than the talking heads and showman politicians would want you to believe.

About Katrina and altruism (hopefully not too far off thread): My wife's family lost everything. They came and stayed with us, got a plan together and went back home. They are now rebuilding their lives.

In the Houston area, thousands opened their home and their pocketbooks to the needy of NOLA. One estimate I saw suggested more than 200,000 evacuees came to Houston and its surrounds.

The payback? A friend's lets evacuees occupy a rent house she owned. They trash it, steal the a/c units and start a small fire. The tries to get them to leave, they refuse. She evicts them and gets bad press.

Today, nearly two years later, Houston still has over 150,000 evacuees. Despite an overal unemployment rate of less than 5%, 85% of the x-orleanians are still unemployed. Millions of dollars in aide money was squandered on beer and cigarettes and "men's clubs". Houston's crime rate used to be the envy of every major city in America. Today, our murder rate alone rivals all of the big cities (except New Orleans itself). A month ago, my wife's purse was stolen by inside our local mall, the first time in 27 years of living here that we were subject to a crime. The police told use it was a gang imported from NOLA. Two women approached while we were talking to the police to tell us they both had been robbed in the same place by the same gang.

That was the payback for having a good heart. I don't put much measure in how much money or time is thrown at a problem. I measure the results. It doesn't matter if the problem is environmental or social. Interventionism isn't always the answer.

Formerly 45yroldNewbie
08-19-2007, 16:42
In spite of the fear of sounding too idealistic or simplistic here's my take on Global Warming....

The earth has been around for millions of years and has suffered many events that can and has affected its climate. From comet and/or meteors slamming into it and blocking the sun (talk about cooling) to volcanoes emitting poisonous gasses etc. Through it all she still spins and still recovers. Nature's balance has a way of protecting itself. Can man cause changes to the balance absolutely! Do those changes necessitate doom and gloom? IMO not always. To think that we, humans, can cause a major event(short of nuclear annihilation of everything) is pretty egotistical. The earth has cycled hot-cold-hot for centuries and will continue to do so for many more. Nature will always balance itself out and continue to survive. Sure some species go extinct due to whatever factors influence them but that is still part of nature. In the long run there is very little we can do to stop a warming or cooling cycle in spite of what any government or special interest groups wants us to believe in order to serve their own agendas.

On a lighter note- spend a winter here in Chicago and tell there is global warming. Hell there are days in January that I come home and spray a couple cans of aerosol just to try and heat things up!! j/k:smiley2:

porsche060
08-20-2007, 10:01
Another interesting tidbit
"
you click here (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070818214642.2288blmn&show_article=1) you will have the privilege of reading a story about hundreds of people stripping nekkid and posing for a picture on a glacier somewhere in the Swiss Alps. A melting glacier. The nekkid people say that the photograph is aimed to draw attention to ... guess what? That's right! GLOBAL WARMING! Oh .. and the effects of man-made climate change. Now here's what they aren't telling you. At the base of one melting glacier in Europe they actually found a silver mine! That's right .. a mine. The mining tools were neatly stacked where they had been left by the miners as they left the mine for the winter. The only problem was that a mini ice-age was on the way, and the snow never melted enough for them to go back to their summer mining activities. Year after year of snow created a glacier .. a glacier that is now melting as the mini ice-age has ended. What does this all mean? This means that the Earth was actually warmer back then ... back when this mine was active ... than it is now! And guess what? There were no SUVs and airplanes around to dirty up the air."

dmdoss
08-20-2007, 22:19
Well why isn't anybody turning volcano's off? They are the biggest source of damage. I guess we should have a volcano tax. Lets send Gore to turn a volcano off.

wgt
11-07-2007, 20:12
Another interesting tidbit
"
you click here (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=070818214642.2288blmn&show_article=1) you will have the privilege of reading a story about hundreds of people stripping nekkid and posing for a picture on a glacier somewhere in the Swiss Alps. A melting glacier. The nekkid people say that the photograph is aimed to draw attention to ... guess what? That's right! GLOBAL WARMING! Oh .. and the effects of man-made climate change. Now here's what they aren't telling you. At the base of one melting glacier in Europe they actually found a silver mine! That's right .. a mine. The mining tools were neatly stacked where they had been left by the miners as they left the mine for the winter. The only problem was that a mini ice-age was on the way, and the snow never melted enough for them to go back to their summer mining activities. Year after year of snow created a glacier .. a glacier that is now melting as the mini ice-age has ended. What does this all mean? This means that the Earth was actually warmer back then ... back when this mine was active ... than it is now! And guess what? There were no SUVs and airplanes around to dirty up the air."

Alternatively, the base of the mountain may have been free of snow due to local elevation of geothermal activity inherent in mountainous areas. I am therefore reluctant to throw away a serious model of global climate based on a single photo of this nature. I would indeed be curious to determine whether the higher snowline was a local versus a more widespread phenomenon.

The climate of the earth has indeed cycled many times, as evidenced by biological and geological evidence. Fossilized tropical plants in Russia should not fail to convince any reasonable person that the earth was indeed far hotter in eras past than it is today. Additionally, Antarctic ice core samples of gas captured through geological time demonstrate dramatic oscillations of both CO2 levels and, correspondingly temperature. The issue of interest and greatest controversy relates to tracking these measures accurately through the era of large scale agriculture and industrialization. Both of these are relatively recent phenomena, arising within the last few hundred years of our roughly 200,000 year history, which is itself just a tick of the clock, as life on Earth first appeared well in excess of 3 billion years ago.

Unquestionably, we are riding a huge spike in CO2 levels. The spike is sufficiently sharp that there has been an apparent uncoupling of the relationship between the CO2 levels and global temperature. This suggests the possibility that even current CO2 levels will promote warming of the earth for some significant time to come. The matter of greatest controversy, however, pertains to whether our culturally determined dependence on the mass combustion of fossil fuels, deforestation, and industrial production of domestic grazing animals is contributing meaningfully (and dangerously) to the spike. There are also positive feedback concerns as warming of the seas reduces the solubility of CO2 and hence the ability of the seas to buffer atmospheric CO2.

Of course, conflicting interests add to the controversy, as authorities on both sides of the fence may be subject to bias or even frank misrepresentation/fraud, noting that people sometimes cheat for good causes. Stockholders of British Petroleum may be biased to say "no way" with prices of Brent Sweet Light Crude mounting by the nanosecond. On the other hand, global warming alarmists may selectively ignore recent historical data that is may defy their working hypothesis. Critical to this possibility, considerable debate rages as to the accuracy of CO2 measurements taken before about 1957.

Concerning our capacity to overthrow the earth's thermostat with production/emission of green-house gases, some may claim that this possibility is purely the fanciful product of human arrogance. To the contrary, it could easily be argued that the human infestation of the planet would inevitably alter the climate, and that only human stupidity could blind us to this eventuality. After all, biological organisms have accumulated carbon for billions of years, and complex hydrocarbons have been concentrated in liquid and solid forms for a significant portion of that period. In very recent years, we have decided that setting fire to these accumulations makes life better. We are effectively burning our planet, with resultant tonnes (or tons for the Americans) of emissions being vomited into an egg-shell thin atmosphere. My conclusion is that the climate must necessarily react.

When you place a frog in hot water, he naturally gets very upset. When you place him in cool water, which is then slowly heated, he remains basically calm until he dies. Of course, I can't prove the hypotheses of global warming and serious related ecological threats. However, I can see that the trend in fossil fuel consumption will continue as the two largest populations on the planet attempt to develop economically (Exxonomically?). But I still trust that most sensible persons can see a wisdom in tapping a clean set of alternatives, if only in an off-chance that we are the little froggies on the stove.

Closer to home for all of us, all of ST Community members with kids and/or grandkids should be concerned about the future of inherently heat-sensitive corals and dependent species. I would like to hear from some parents, grandparents, and especially the younger members of their families also.

I clearly disagree with many posters concerning the issue. But the importance of the topic warrants our vigorous disagreement, and I very much value these contrary opinions. Thank you for starting this thread Porshe060.

marchand
11-07-2007, 23:58
To say that human produced CO2 is what is causing global warming in my opinion is, for lack of a better word, stupid. when compared to the amount of CO2 produced by volcanoes human produced CO2 is negligible. another point is that CO2 levels follow warming and cooling trends, not vice versa. in other words, it gets hot then CO2 levels rise because when water is warm it can't have as much dissolved in it and oceans take a long time to warm. also, the main green house gas in the atmosphere is water vapor, not CO2. another thing I have heard is that the whole man-made global warming BS is that its purpose is to keep developing nations from developing and competing with the industrialized nations. that doesn't sound very people friendly to me. (kyoto protocol).

In order for human activity to affect the global climate it would have to increase by a few hundred orders of magnitude.

WaScubaDude
11-08-2007, 00:10
1) Don't make excuses for treating our planet like crap.

2) The other, other Inconvenient Truth, is this is a really big ship, and if we really are as far along in global warming as indicators show, it is to late for anything we can do to really stop it. Think "big aircraft carrier heading full throttle toward a Island that is quite near." You can wish, and jump up and down on the deck, but aint nothing going to stop the collision.

ScubaGir1
11-08-2007, 01:06
Check out State of Fear by Michael Crichton. He annotates every source for the data in his book about radical enviromentalism.

What is interesting in the research for that book is that temperature rise in the cities of the world is in direct correlation to the growth of those cities. Cities that haven't grown show virtually no temperature rise over the last century.

This is from someone who does work for an Oil and Gas company but does believe we should wean ourselves from fossil fuels and our dependency on foreign sources of said product.
When I got my B.S. in Earth & Environmental Science we read that book, for fun mostly. We tore that book apart and proved how wrong it was. Not to mention how Michael Crichton views women.

For everyone who doesn't believe global warming is occurring....I have no idea what to say to you LOL. There is so much data and evidence, I just don't understand how some people can't see it. I suppose if you were able to see "hands-on" data it would be easier for you to accept it.

ETA: These are great examples:
http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/mara16jade/More%20Pictures/zFacts-CO2-Temp.gif

http://i15.photobucket.com/albums/a382/mara16jade/More%20Pictures/Global_Warming_Predictions.png

wgt
11-08-2007, 05:25
Please note the spike in CO2 levels overlapping with the industrial era (red line on far right of graph -- click on thumbnail to enlarge).

Foo2
11-08-2007, 08:35
I thought this thread was dead....ugh! It's been nearly 2 1/2 months! Just try not to beat any dead horses.

BuzzF117
11-08-2007, 10:21
I thought this thread was dead....ugh! It's been nearly 2 1/2 months! Just try not to beat any dead horses.


No matter how hard or much you beat a dead horse it is still dead. You can make the argument on both sides of global warming. Personally I think it's an excuse to tax and penalize the producers in the world. Yes companies that knowingly dump damage the environment should be punished but I don't believe that it's industry that is the major polluter its the environment itself i.e. California fires, volcanos and other natural disasters.

nuf said

quasimoto
11-08-2007, 16:22
Not totally sure on the global warming issue..though I did buy a hybrid truck.

The one that gets me is the fact that the glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. But yet last month on the national news it was reported that Lake Erie in the Great Lakes has fallen more than 2 feet this year. Just doesn't add up.

wgt
11-09-2007, 07:32
Not totally sure on the global warming issue..though I did buy a hybrid truck.

The one that gets me is the fact that the glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. But yet last month on the national news it was reported that Lake Erie in the Great Lakes has fallen more than 2 feet this year. Just doesn't add up.

Water levels in Great Lakes can change dramatically from one year to the next. It is largely dependent on the relative magnitudes of precipitation rates versus evaporation rates. Levels usually peak in the early summer based on the combined effects of spring run-off from melting snow/ice and rains.

Winter temperatures in Southern Ontario are predicted to rise by 3 - 6 degrees C and summer temperatures are expected to rise 4 - 8 degrees C during the current century. In tandem, annual precipitation rates are expected to increase slightly, largely on the back of increased winter snowfall. It is hard to say what this means for the long-term levels of the Great Lakes, with elevated temperatures probably increasing evaporation rates. In any event, the 60-cm drop in Lake Erie that you report does not itself bear any particular indication in relation to global climatic trends.

mitsuguy
11-09-2007, 10:17
my personal take on it - we should all do as much as possible to limit co2 production...

sure, volcanoes, forest fires and such are all huge co2 producers, however, they have been around since the beginning of time essentially....

the stuff we do hasn't, only within the past 100 years...

now, do I think it is overdramatized - sure... do I think it will seriously affect us or our kids or even our kids kids - probably not hugely...

however, all these things are only going to grow exponentially as the population of the world increases...

the ****ty thing about it is that none of us will be around "in the end" - personally, I'd love to look 500-1000 years into the future and see where civilization is then... look how far human civilization has come in the past 5000 years...

8000 B.C world pop - 8 million (there are more than that in LA right now)
in 1650, world pop was 500 million (doubling population roughly every 1500 years over a span of 9650 years) in just 160 years, that doubled to 1 billion... around 1910, it doubled again to about 2 billion (100 years later), and now, 100 years later again, we are at 6.7 billion (and climbing at a rate of about 3 / second) That is a factor of 3.35 over 100 years...

Now, you see where this is going... At what point do we run out of resources, at what point does the increased need for transportation equate into too much pollutants emitted...

It may be ok right now, but what about in 50 years, when the population (at current growth rates) should have more than doubled...

Thats what is scary to think about for me...

mm2002
11-27-2007, 23:42
Lots of good points here. And what about all these "dooms day" shows airing on the discovery channel> "Mega Disasters", etc. Is this crap meant as true scientific discoveries, or just another way to depress an already depressed society?

scubagearjustin
11-28-2007, 00:47
It is good to learn something here.

mitsuguy
11-28-2007, 01:03
Lots of good points here. And what about all these "dooms day" shows airing on the discovery channel> "Mega Disasters", etc. Is this crap meant as true scientific discoveries, or just another way to depress an already depressed society?

more along the lines of worst case scenarios...

from the ones I've seen, it appears they are possible scenarios if the worst of the worst hit a certain area- for instance a hurricane hit New York, or a F5 tornado hit Dallas... the chances of them happening are low, but the same goes for a tsunami killing hundreds of thousands in and around Indonesia... it doesn't happen often, but live long enough and there's a good chance you'll see it...

BuzzF117
11-28-2007, 06:54
Not totally sure on the global warming issue..though I did buy a hybrid truck.

The one that gets me is the fact that the glaciers are melting and the seas are rising. But yet last month on the national news it was reported that Lake Erie in the Great Lakes has fallen more than 2 feet this year. Just doesn't add up.

Water levels in Great Lakes can change dramatically from one year to the next. It is largely dependent on the relative magnitudes of precipitation rates versus evaporation rates. Levels usually peak in the early summer based on the combined effects of spring run-off from melting snow/ice and rains.

Winter temperatures in Southern Ontario are predicted to rise by 3 - 6 degrees C and summer temperatures are expected to rise 4 - 8 degrees C during the current century. In tandem, annual precipitation rates are expected to increase slightly, largely on the back of increased winter snowfall. It is hard to say what this means for the long-term levels of the Great Lakes, with elevated temperatures probably increasing evaporation rates. In any event, the 60-cm drop in Lake Erie that you report does not itself bear any particular indication in relation to global climatic trends.

Warmer winters usually mean lower lake levels since you get more evaporation when the water isn't frozen. Colder snowier winters contribute greatly to higher water levels in the lake.