http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

Al Gore must've invented CO2 based global warming just exactly how he invented the Internet.

It's the Sun. It's always been the Sun.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.com/2008/02/19/january-2008-4-sources-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/

Al Gore must've invented CO2 based global warming just exactly how he invented the Internet.

It's the Sun. It's always been the Sun.

lolwut? did you read the article? let me quote it for you.

There has been no “erasure”. This is an anomaly with a large magnitude, and it coincides with other anecdotal weather evidence. It is curious, it is unusual, it is large, it is unexpected, but it does not “erase” anything. I suggested a correction to DailyTech and they have graciously complied.

There's a lot of evidence, more every day, that it's the Sun.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175

There's a lot of evidence, more every day, that it's the Sun.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/earth/4248062.html

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
Both articles cite Ken Tapping, with the second article presenting views of Dr. Tapping without quotes (the second article is an editorial, in fact, probably building from the first. Tapping was contacted about it and says (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/02/a-day-when-hell-was-frozen/#comment-80961):
Hi Steve,
The article is rubbish.

I believe that global climate change is the biggest problem facing us today. As yet we have no idea of exactly how serious it can get or where the tipping point may be.

The lateness of the start of the solar activity cycle is not yet enough to be something to worry about. However, even if we were to go into another minimum, and the Sun dims for a few decades, as it did during the Maunder Minimum, it could reduce the problem for a while, but things will come back worse when the cycle starts again.

We are looking at the downside of the freedom of the web. Its freedom extends to bad information being circulated.

Regards,

Ken
EDIT: This person (http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/) also contacted Tapping:Hi Tom,

Thanks for the message. The stuff on the web came from a casual chat with someone who managed to misunderstand what I said and then put the result on the web, which is probably a big caution for me regarding the future.

It is true that the beginning of the next solar cycle is late, but not so late that we are getting worried, merely curious.

It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.

Thanks for the heads-up.

Regards,

Ken
As a side note, rep gone bye-bye.

I agree with him completely that climate change is going to be a huge deal. I just disagree with the people who think a global carbon tax is going to somehow throw magic reins of Liberalism on the Universe and change eons of climate patterns.

It's very unlikely we have as significant an effect on climate was we think. If greenhouse gases were so huge a factor, the Sun dimming alone wouldn't be enough to temporarily reverse the trend.

Many smart people were worried about a mini ice age in the 70's. We've always misunderstood and overestimated our power to influence nature.

We don't need to change eons of climate patterns, only the current pattern.

I'm going to put my money with the current scientific consensus over gut feelings. When the Dr. Tappings of the world decide that we don't need to "attack the problem of greenhouse gases" I'll happily give it a rest.

If we think that we can change the natural warming and cooling trends of the planet, we do need to figure out how to outsmart eons of climate patterns.

We know without a doubt that these warming and cooling phases predate our industrial revolution by millions of years. On top of that, we know that CO2 levels fluctuated with the climate during that entire time. It is foolish to believe that we are in control of these things.

The world has been warming since the last ice age. The sun is set to flip poles again and increase more warming upon the Earth. There are suggestions that when the poles flip on the sun in 2012 the world will end or a new planet will form between the sun and mercury from the solar flares.

Well then some think the world will end on 2012 the lst date of the Mayan calandar ect. easy to google.

The world has been warming since the ice age, so we may increase it some with cars and coal plants Hell maybe even the poles will be tropical again.
Buy more green prious cars with vanity plates touting your milage. Ethanol is the answer let the world starve so I can drive my car with 48 mpg and sleep well at night.

But who is saving the polar bear ? Buy more energy efficient windows to reduce power plant production and energy use better insulation in the attic,
I dont buy into the whole thing and whose to stop the worse pollutors in asia that send there lead lased toys for my kids to play with.

edit ive said this before I love you green loving people. Finally people are waking up. Mow down a forest to build 500k + homes 4tw.

I'm definately willing to buy into the argument that there are many natural fluctuations wether it be polar or solar or oceanic that are exerting thier influence on the current situation.
But i know what i can see with my own eyes. and humanity while not the sole cause certainly are not helping things much. ever to been to L.A. on a bad day?

The problem, as I see it, is egotism.

Some human beings are so convinced of our superiority, they can't concieve that we are about as effective at changing the climate on this planet, as a flea is in influencing the direction of an elephant.

We have been on this planet as a species, for a geological "blink of an eye". This planet has been much hotter in the past, than it is currently. Even though we can take rock and ice core samples, we can't be certain why it was hotter. Some say volcanos were more active. Some point to the sun for increased activity.

Heck, we still can't predict the weather past 5 days accurately. The climate on this planet is order from chaos, personified. There are too many factors to be accurate.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pollute. On the contrary, I think we should be looking for better ways to get rid of our wastes. Not because we are "destroying the planet!!!!!111!". Because clean water, and air are good things to have around.

This is a dynamic planet, it is always changing. If we should learn anything from its past, it's that.

Some human beings are so convinced of our superiority, they can't concieve that we are about as effective at changing the climate on this planet, as a flea is in influencing the direction of an elephant.

We have been on this planet as a species, for a geological "blink of an eye". This planet has been much hotter in the past, than it is currently. Even though we can take rock and ice core samples, we can't be certain why it was hotter. Some say volcanos were more active. Some point to the sun for increased activity.

Heck, we still can't predict the weather past 5 days accurately. The climate on this planet is order from chaos, personified. There are too many factors to be accurate.

I'm not saying we shouldn't pollute. On the contrary, I think we should be looking for better ways to get rid of our wastes. Not because we are "destroying the planet!!!!!111!". Because clean water, and air are good things to have around.

This is a dynamic planet, it is always changing. If we should learn anything from its past, it's that.

When the leading scientists all around the world say there is scientific evidence that the CO2 levels in the world are increasing, that humans are the cause, and this is increasing the temperature ... thats not ego. Thats fact. It is always changing, sure, but it never has at the current rate. No other type of creature to inhabit this planet has had the power to drastically change the environment we have (roadwork, skyscrapers, and terraforming). When thousands and thousands of people with PhD's say its getting warmer and we're the reason why - I'm gonna believe them over Sixee's uninformed, thoughtless belief that we haven't affected the planet at all. Did you not even look at the links Thormir posted about how the data was taken out of context and was greatly misunderstood?

It never ceases to amaze me the rationalization people will go to to protect their own wealth and prosperity.

Let's pretend for a second, just a second, that the scientific consensus is wrong about the global warming, or more specifically, humans effect on it...just like they are wrong about evolution :rolleyes:.

It is, or is it not, a good idea to stop pumping tons of air pollution per capita into the atmosphere of the planet? That's the the over-riding question. Republican policy, in general, would rather keep destroying the environment, polluting everything in it's path in their search for more power and riches. Of course, for a lot of them, they believe god will intervene and save their chosen asses.:rolleyes:

When the leading scientists all around the world say there is scientific evidence that the CO2 levels in the world are increasing, that humans are the cause, and this is increasing the temperature ... thats not ego. Thats fact. It is always changing, sure, but it never has at the current rate. No other type of creature to inhabit this planet has had the power to drastically change the environment we have (roadwork, skyscrapers, and terraforming). When thousands and thousands of people with PhD's say its getting warmer and we're the reason why - I'm gonna believe them over Sixee's uninformed, thoughtless belief that we haven't affected the planet at all. Did you not even look at the links Thormir posted about how the data was taken out of context and was greatly misunderstood?

i love how he also equated weather with climate in his post, hilarious.

When the leading scientists all around the world say there is scientific evidence that the CO2 levels in the world are increasing, that humans are the cause, and this is increasing the temperature ... thats not ego. Thats fact. It is always changing, sure, but it never has at the current rate. No other type of creature to inhabit this planet has had the power to drastically change the environment we have (roadwork, skyscrapers, and terraforming). When thousands and thousands of people with PhD's say its getting warmer and we're the reason why - I'm gonna believe them over Sixee's uninformed, thoughtless belief that we haven't affected the planet at all. Did you not even look at the links Thormir posted about how the data was taken out of context and was greatly misunderstood?
Remember back when "the leading scientists all around the world" thought the world was flat? When they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe? When they thought the Sun was? When they just knew that light propagated through the ether? "Leading scientists" have a long history of confirmation bias, when fame/money/ego is added to the mix.

Obviously there is climate change. "Leading scientists" jumping on the CO2 bandwagon, in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary, is awfully underwhelming to me.

Remember back when "the leading scientists all around the world" thought the world was flat? When they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe? When they thought the Sun was? When they just knew that light propagated through the ether? "Leading scientists" have a long history of confirmation bias, when fame/money/ego is added to the mix.

Obviously there is climate change. "Leading scientists" jumping on the CO2 bandwagon, in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary, is awfully underwhelming to me.

yea, not really,

The modern belief that especially medieval Christianity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity) believed in a flat earth has been referred to as The Myth of the Flat Earth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_mythology).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#_note-Jeffrey_Russell) In 1945, it was listed by the Historical Association (of Britain) as the second of 20 in a pamphlet on common errors in history.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#_note-historical_association) Several scholars[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#_note-0) have argued that "with extraordinary few exceptions no educated person in the history of Western Civilization from the third century B.C. onward believed that the earth was flat" and that the prevailing view was of a spherical earth.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth#_note-Jeffrey_Russell) Jeffrey Russell states that the modern view that people of the Middle Ages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Middle_Ages) believed that the Earth was flat is said to have entered the popular imagination in the 19th century, thanks largely to the publication of Washington Irving (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Irving)'s fantasy The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Life_and_Voyages_of_Christopher_Columbus) in 1828.

Just as with the hype surrounding CO2, you're missing the forest for the trees here.

When the leading scientists all around the world say there is scientific evidence that the CO2 levels in the world are increasing, that humans are the cause, and this is increasing the temperature ... thats not ego. Thats fact. No, that's a theory. If it were a fact, it would have been proven. If we can't forcast the weather beyond 5 days, how can we say anything is a "fact" when it comes to the climate? WTH is a "leading scientist" anyways?

It is always changing, sure, but it never has at the current rate. No other type of creature to inhabit this planet has had the power to drastically change the environment we have (roadwork, skyscrapers, and terraforming). That's ego. Terraforming? If you mean things like building cities below sea level, you see how well that went, when Katrina came rolling through.

When thousands and thousands of people with PhD's say its getting warmer and we're the reason why - I'm gonna believe them over Sixee's uninformed, thoughtless belief that we haven't affected the planet at all. I never said we haven't affected the planet. I have said we aren't going to "destroy" it. Big difference.

Did you not even look at the links Thormir posted about how the data was taken out of context and was greatly misunderstood? I did read that. Have you read the articles that show the past warming trends on Earth, are mirrored on other planets? How did our greenhouse gasses get out there? Here's a collection of articles about global warming on other planets.

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/space/2006-05-04-jupiter-jr-spot_x.htm?POE=TECISVA

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL028764.shtml

http://www.scienceagogo.com/news/19980526052143data_trunc_sys.shtml

http://www.sciencenewsforkids.org/articles/20060419/Feature1.asp

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/pluto_warming_021009.html

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4266474.stm



How about the sun's output being at a 1000 year high?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/18/ixnewstop.html

The FACT is we don't know as much as we'd like to think we do.

No, that's a theory. If it were a fact, it would have been proven. If we can't forcast the weather beyond 5 days, how can we say anything is a "fact" when it comes to the climate? WTH is a "leading scientist" anyways?

you are aware what a scientific theory is, yes? its not 'just a theory'.

I never said we haven't affected the planet. I have said we aren't going to "destroy" it. Big difference.

true, we're only going to make it unlivable for our race.

Remember back when "the leading scientists all around the world" thought the world was flat? When they thought the Earth was the center of the Universe? When they thought the Sun was? When they just knew that light propagated through the ether? "Leading scientists" have a long history of confirmation bias, when fame/money/ego is added to the mix.

Obviously there is climate change. "Leading scientists" jumping on the CO2 bandwagon, in the face of plenty of evidence to the contrary, is awfully underwhelming to me.

No, leading scientists never proved the world was flat. That never happened. They proved that CO2 is increasing dramatically, and assume that humans are most likely the cause. They proved this is affecting our temperatures.

They have not proved that CO2 is driving climate change.

you are aware what a scientific theory is, yes? its not 'just a theory'. Yes, a scientific theory, is not a fact.



true, we're only going to make it unlivable for our race.

You really think we have become the most successful species on the planet, because we didn't learn to adapt?

Man, you really need to lay off the bong hits, dude. It's ruining your critical thinking skillz.

It never ceases to amaze me the rationalization people will go to to protect their own wealth and prosperity.

Let's pretend for a second, just a second, that the scientific consensus is wrong about the global warming, or more specifically, humans effect on it...just like they are wrong about evolution :rolleyes:.

It is, or is it not, a good idea to stop pumping tons of air pollution per capita into the atmosphere of the planet? That's the the over-riding question. Republican policy, in general, would rather keep destroying the environment, polluting everything in it's path in their search for more power and riches. Of course, for a lot of them, they believe god will intervene and save their chosen asses.:rolleyes:YES! This is what I keep saying. It doesn't matter if global warming is the ultimate problem or not, any 10 year old can walk outside their apartment in a big city and point out that gee, the air quality sucks. When doctors recommend patients with lung problems move to the mountains to escape pollution, there's an issue. I should never go boating and find riverways closed off because of toxins in the water. If we're so enlightened and technical, lets start finding cleaner manufacturing methods for the other thousands of reasons on the list, and let global warming sort itself out.

The evidence against the environmental damage is significant. Hell, I want to eat fish and not have to track mercury by the week. The global warming debate is nothing more than a way to get focus off of the real damage being done, to prolong current practices and pad profit margins.

You really think we have become the most successful species on the planet, because we didn't learn to adapt?
I always thought it was the other way around, we survived and rose because we managed to adapt our environnment to us.
For example if you go in a cold weather place you may need to get warmer clothes, or a warmer place to live, so you will probably hunt/raise animals for the skin, or cut more wood to keep your home warm. You don't grow some fur.

And that's the main problem, we are burning alot, and ashes aren't that well taken care of. There is none but us to take care of us.

When do we start? :)

I guess that's 1 way to look at it. However, look at it this way: We recognize the need to stay warm so we use our frontal lobe to figure out away around the situation.

Planning ahead, by raising animals, cutting down more firewood, is as I view it, adapting our behavior to live in an environment that is hostile to us, unprepared.

No, we don't adapt our bodies, generally. Although the appendics, and coccyx are two structure that come to mind of our bodies adapting to the environment.

And that's the main problem, we are burning alot, and ashes aren't that well taken care of. There is none but us to take care of us.

When do we start?

The thing is, you are assuming that we are the cause of the climate change. What if we arent, and it's all part of a natural process of warming and cooling trends that have occured on this planet well before we climbed out of the trees?

I'm not saying we should raze all the timber, burn all the coal, and dump our radioactive waste into the oceans.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't do these things, because clean water, and clean air are good things to have. I don't like being scared into the correct action. It's just another form of terrorism.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't do these things, because clean water, and clean air are good things to have. I don't like being scared into the correct action. It's just another form of terrorism.
Carrot and stick, that's how the world goes round, isn't it? ;)

And I'm not saying that we are fully responsible for global warming/cooling, just that we are for modifying and polluting Earth carelessly.

and polluting Earth carelessly.
I completely agree that we should try to limit our pollution. I absolutely don't agree with those who want to debunk CO2 based global warming in order to freely spew pollutants into our land, air, and water.

We should certainly continue trying to find clean alternatives to things, where possible.

I just think it's ridiculous how we have people pushing for a global CO2 tax, before we even know what we're talking about. The Al Gore camp has their cart way ahead of the horse.

Characterizing all this as some Al Gore conspiracy is really misleading and strawmanish. This isn't something he invented (omg like the internetz lolz) but due to the work of thousands of atmospheric scientists over the last couple decades.

Does more work need to be done? Absolutely. But if the theory is correct and now is the tipping point where we may or may not be able to reverse course, then we should take action as a preventative measure.

If the theory isn't correct, however, we are wasting, time, money and energy trying to prevent something that we have no control over, and are powerless to stop.

I agree that more work needs to be done, to understand the nature of the phenomena, so that these resources can be redirected to other means if indeed it is found to be false.

Remember the fable of Chicken Little? What if the sky isn't falling? Shouldn't we make sure it's really the sky, and not an acorn?

In 1980ish the leading scientists had a theory that proclaimed we were heading into another ice age.

Infact, I remember hearing lately that one of the scientists sharing the Nobel with Mr. Gore has backed off claims. Will have to find a link.

If the theory isn't correct, however, we are wasting, time, money and energy trying to prevent something that we have no control over, and are powerless to stop.

I agree that more work needs to be done, to understand the nature of the phenomena, so that these resources can be redirected to other means if indeed it is found to be false.

Remember the fable of Chicken Little? What if the sky isn't falling? Shouldn't we make sure it's really the sky, and not an acorn?

The point is, even if the theory is incorrect, the result of the time, money and energy we put into it will still better our air quality and other environmental problems we face. This is not something that is if found to be not true will have been a waste of time... If found to not be true, it will still have been a worthwhile task.

If you like being lied to, then more power to you, Jedd.

I prefer to be told the truth; That we don't know why the planet is getting warmer/cooler.

To think/believe otherwise is no more ingenuous than your Rabbi/Cleric/Preist/Pastor saying you need to be good to go to Heaven.

They don't know if there is a Heaven, or not. But they do know if you are good, then things run more smoothly for the time you are here.

It's just another form of control, without all the "God" thrown into it.

Just a few notes on this:

Theory vs fact:
A theory is a testable prediction that has yet to be proven incorrect.

A fact is the results of a test.

"Global temperatures are rising." is a fact.
"Global temperatures are rising because of xxxx" is a theory.

When Al Gore talks about inventing the internet, he's talking about the government related aspects of it. As the institutions involved in the early internet tended to be government funded, if not run, this was a less than insignificant peice of work.

On the other hand, making government adopt a prevailing technology, or create situations where it would prosper, or championing such situations can hardly be considered "inventing" it.

If you like being lied to, then more power to you, Jedd.

I prefer to be told the truth; That we don't know why the planet is getting warmer/cooler.

To think/believe otherwise is no more ingenuous than your Rabbi/Cleric/Preist/Pastor saying you need to be good to go to Heaven.

They don't know if there is a Heaven, or not. But they do know if you are good, then things run more smoothly for the time you are here.

It's just another form of control, without all the "God" thrown into it.

It is not about being lied to... It is about like said in the post above, a theory not being proven incorrect. The downside of the theory being proven incorrect is that they were wrong. The upside, that we spent money and time on something that improves our overall standard of living.

They don't know if there is a Heaven, or not. But they do know if you are good, then things run more smoothly for the time you are here.

It's just another form of control, without all the "God" thrown into it.
Even if I am a convinced atheist, this kind of argument always makes me smile, and reminds me of the "Contact" movie, more precisely the scene when they select and question candidates to chose which ones will use the alien machine, they ask Juddy Foster's character if she believes in God. She replies that not at all, being a scientist, she only believes in facts.
Then one of the recruiting crew asks her "Did you really think that you represent mankind when 90% of the world population believe there is a God or High Being?"

With that, if you threaten this one guy who just threw away his empty can that his great great great sons may suffer from his carelessness, he will problably shrug it off, and not think at it again anytime soon.
Now you threaten him with endless hell for his sin against his God, and you have 90% of chance to make him wonder "Why take the chance?".

That's a grossly painted example of course, but you get my point I'm sure. You need to threaten people, even if it's a bit exagerated, with something that will affect them personnally.

And I don't think that money and time invested in effort to control our ressources hunger is a waste, for how much or how little we affect our planet, the less the better, in the end.

Why is global warming assumed to be a bad thing? I prefer warmer winters and a closer coastline :).

The Issue Evolution Theory of Issue Allignment simply states that as an issue emerges, one side picks a stance, and by virtue, the other side adopts the opposite. Over time, the correlation between party identity and a specific side approaches 1, and they become inseparable.

We've seen this over and over again in American History - Goldwater's opposition to the Civil Rights Act which led to the destruction of the 'Democratic south' and the adoption of the Democratic party by minorities. Reagan's opposition to EPA and it's effect on women voters. Abortion... The list goes on.

Looking through any of these posts about global warming, it's obvious that the sides are drawn strictly by party lines. I'm not attacking anyone or any side, but I think if you really thought about it, you might begin to ask yourself why you fall on one side or another? Do you really know that much about it, or do you have a preconceived opinion (Obviously given to you by another. We're not scientists), and then do you find articles that support 'your' claims? Global warming does not inherently lend itself to either political party. Republicans, however, will fight to the end to prove that it doesn't exist, and Democrats vice versa.

Personally, I do not care about global warming. To worry about the future means we have to actually get there first. I just find it very interesting the way that this issue has evolved, especially given the American peoples' aversion towards foresight in many other arenas. :)

Why is global warming assumed to be a bad thing? I prefer warmer winters and a closer coastline :).

Mosquitos aren't dying off (http://www.emagazine.com/view/?2116) as greatly because of the shorter winters and the frost line shifting north. This is causing an increase in Malaria and West Nile Virus (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/372219.stm). Ditto for Ticks and Lime disease (http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/early-warning-signs-of-global-warming-spreading-disease.html), rodents and the plague (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1165043.stm), and beetles (http://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/articles/2005/03/27/news/01beetles.txt) ravaging the old growth forests (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=3995&method=full).

Warmer waters (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?ID=4003&Method=Full&PageCall=&Title=Jellyfish%20Flourish%20As%20Water%20Warms&Cache=False) are showing an increase in jellyfish populations. (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol7/v7n18/hot.htm)

Poison Ivy (http://www.heatisonline.org/contentserver/objecthandlers/index.cfm?id=4654&method=full) and Ragweed (http://www.nwf.org/nationalwildlife/printerFriendly.cfm?issueID=74&articleID=1063) are loving increased temperatures and shorter winters. These two will make your stay at the closer beach that much more pleasant, you know, if you stay out of the water and avoid the jellyfish.

Butterflies (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-08/bpl-gwe080505.php) are dropping, and haven't you heard the theory if you go back in time and kill a butterfly it changes the world?

Songbirds (http://www.nwf.org/globalwarming/climateMapPage.cfm), Waterfowl (http://www.enn.com/aff.html?id=728), and Penguins (http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,12374,782594,00.html) are all seeing rapidly decreasing numbers. Less predators means more bugs. More bugs ... (rinse and repeat of above)

Trout and Salmon (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ntrout.asp) numbers are also suffering.

And of course, no one knows what happens if enough fresh water from the frozen poles enters the salt water of the ocean and changes the salinity, thus changing currents and tides and weather and generally fucking everything up.

I'm over at NASA Goddard probably once a month. Three years ago when I started this job the NASA position was that they weren't sure if global warming was happening. Since then after hours and hours and hours of research by thousands of scientists they are sure its happening. Frankly, the fact that Sixee doesn't believe its happening is reason enough to be sure. If the smartest minds of our generation are pretty much in a consensus anymore, its probably not a bad idea to heed their warnings - especially when it doesn't hurt us at all to cut CO2 emissions and energy usage.

Even that aside, I'm an avid skiier. I've gone every year to the poconos on Christmas since I was born. The past 5 years every year there isn't enough snow to ski despite increased snow generation techniques. Others have their own anecdotal stories of the glaciers they used to visit as a kid or the Alaskan Cruises having less and less polar bears to view.

Hell, just yesterday the Weather Channel said this has been the shortest, warmest winter on record for my area. Now excuse me as I go put my shorts on and head downtown to work on the 5th of March.

And of course, no one knows what happens if enough fresh water from the frozen poles enters the salt water of the ocean and changes the salinity, thus changing currents and tides and weather and generally fucking everything up. So, we should try and stop a process that may be a natural phonemon because we don't know what might happen? What if we aren't to blame for the process?

Frankly, the fact that Sixee doesn't believe its happening is reason enough to be sure. If the smartest minds of our generation are pretty much in a consensus anymore, its probably not a bad idea to heed their warnings - especially when it doesn't hurt us at all to cut CO2 emissions and energy usage. Yeah, I said,"Global Warming doesn't exist". I waved my hand, all Jedi-like, but Kelraz isn't a weak minded fool, he just can't read.

I prefer to be told the truth; That we don't know why the planet is getting warmer/cooler.


It doesn't hurt us? What about the hamstringing of our economy when other countries (like China and India) don't have to play by such rules?

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/highlights.html


From 2003 to 2004, carbon dioxide emissions from the non-OECD countries grew by almost 10 percent, largely because of a 17-percent increase in coal use in non-OECD Asia, while emissions from the OECD countries grew by less than 2 percent. The result of the large increase in non-OECD emissions was that 2004 marked the first time in history that energy-related carbon dioxide emissions from the non-OECD countries exceeded those from the OECD countries—although by only about 8 million metric tons (Figure 7). Further, because the projected average annual increase in emissions from 2004 to 2030 in the non-OECD countries (2.6 percent) is more than three times the increase projected for the OECD countries (0.8 percent), carbon dioxide emissions from the non-OECD countries in 2030, at 26.2 billion metric tons, are projected to exceed those from the OECD countries by 57 percent.


So we play by the rules, and the economy falters. They don't have to, and have a booming economy. I hate to bring money into the argument, but it talks, when the B.S. starts walking.

Even that aside, I'm an avid skiier. I've gone every year to the poconos on Christmas since I was born. The past 5 years every year there isn't enough snow to ski despite increased snow generation techniques. Others have their own anecdotal stories of the glaciers they used to visit as a kid or the Alaskan Cruises having less and less polar bears to view.

So, if you are an avid skiier, and want to save glaciers, and polar bears, I pose this question to you: What are you willing to do to keep the status quo, if we are not to blame for the changes in climate? Blast billions of tons of dust into the atmosphere?

Trout and Salmon (http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/ntrout.asp) numbers are also suffering.


GAAAAHHHHH!

We have to act and act now to reverse this......I can not have my salmon tampered with, whether it be a nice fillet of smoked salmon or a slab of fresh,,,,I gots to have my salmon. :(

So, we should try and stop a process that may be a natural phonemon because we don't know what might happen? What if we aren't to blame for the process?

Besides the 95% chance are the cause ... yes. If a natural comet was about to wipe us out we should intervene there too.

Sixee, your argument is like a guy with lung cancer refusing to quit smoking. Sure, its equally as possible that smoking doesn't cause medical problems, but when all the leading scientists say it does, and the benefits of fixing it are vast, why debate it without any facts or information or even a theory to back it up.

I'm not gonna debate it with you anymore, I happen to have science and logic and reason on my side and you simply don't.

Trout and Salmon numbers are also suffering.
Thats not got anything to due with global warming. I work in a pretty small plant an we sling about 4K pounds of salmon a week. when the copper river runs are in that up's to about 7K pounds a week. our sales are probably about 1/150th of the sales in the local market.
All of the Pacific salmon sales worldwide run thru my city, I cant even begin to comprehend the numbers involved.
Same with the King crab. we have a world famous client who ran a "special" a couple of weeks back we pushed something like 12K pounds of legs and claws thru there in a weeks time.
Voracious human consumption is the cause here, or in simpler terms...it's all Bylimets fault.

Thats not got anything to due with global warming. I work in a pretty small plant an we sling about 4K pounds of salmon a week. when the copper river runs are in that up's to about 7K pounds a week. our sales are probably about 1/150th of the sales in the local market.
All of the Pacific salmon sales worldwide run thru my city, I cant even begin to comprehend the numbers involved.
Same with the King crab. we have a world famous client who ran a "special" a couple of weeks back we pushed something like 12K pounds of legs and claws thru there in a weeks time.
Voracious human consumption is the cause here, or in simpler terms...it's all Bylimets fault.

Bah!

I don't eat crab, and no more than three servings of salmon per week. :rolleyes:

Didnt damns disrupt salmon populations and thusly effect bears. I dont hear anyoen crying about he black bear or brown bear.

In my hometown I hear all the california transplants crying because wild boar and deer are eating there gardens in there front and backyard. But they cry that the polar bear and seal they have never seen is dieng or starving.

Besides the 95% chance are the cause ... yes. If a natural comet was about to wipe us out we should intervene there too. 95%? Where did that come from? You are basing that figure on 2 facts; that man-made carbon dioxide is more prevelant in the atmosphere, and that the mean temperature of the globe has increased. The coorlation between the two is what is in debate. Not even the "leading scientists" are in agreement there.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=927b9303-802a-23ad-494b-dccb00b51a12"

I'm sure that the conversion of these scientists is some sort of nefarious plan by people that want to destroy the environment. Are these scientists no longer "leading" because they got off of the "Global Warming is Man's Fault <tm>" bandwagon?

LOL, there's that ego, again. You think we could somehow stop a comet from slamming into the Earth? We'd be as helpless as the dinosaurs, if a heavenly body of any sufficent size were to be on a collision course. But you are right, we should try to intervene. Better to go down fighting, than lie down and quit.

Sixee, your argument is like a guy with lung cancer refusing to quit smoking. Sure, its equally as possible that smoking doesn't cause medical problems, but when all the leading scientists say it does, and the benefits of fixing it are vast, why debate it without any facts or information or even a theory to back it up. And your argument is like a greedy doctor who sees a patient with unlimited resources come in for treatment of the sniffles. He'll say the patient has cancer, if it'll get his payment for his Jaguar back on track.

I don't have a problem implementing things that will help clean the environment up, as long as all of the countries in the world will do it at the same time. Unequal implementation of any reductions in carbon dioxide emissions serves only to allow the countries that don't have to, a chance to further thier economies, and to cripple the economies of the ones that do.

It also won't matter, as the study I posted from before shows, if the non-OECD countries' output of CO2 exceeds our's. If carbon dioxide is the reason for global warming, they are the reason for the majority of it, not us.

Doesn't make any sense to tell the patient to stop smoking, if he's living with second hand smoke.

I'm not gonna debate it with you anymore, I happen to have science and logic and reason on my side and you simply don't. Does this mean I win the Internet?

You Win!!1111!

Hell, just yesterday the Weather Channel said this has been the shortest, warmest winter on record for my area. Now excuse me as I go put my shorts on and head downtown to work on the 5th of March.

While I agree that we contribute to global warming and high CO2 emissions are bad, the winter of 2007-2008 has led the the largest snow cover in the northern hemisphere since 1966 (also taken from the weather channel).

That doesn't disprove global warming, even in times of trending temperatures, anomalies can and do happen. This isn't the shortest or warmest winter on record though for the northern hemisphere. Maybe in your local area, yes, but for half the world, no.

While I agree that we contribute to global warming and high CO2 emissions are bad, the winter of 2007-2008 has led the the largest snow cover in the northern hemisphere since 1966 (also taken from the weather channel).

That doesn't disprove global warming, even in times of trending temperatures, anomalies can and do happen. This isn't the shortest or warmest winter on record though for the northern hemisphere. Maybe in your local area, yes, but for half the world, no.

Ah you know that was only a minor snipet of my post ;) In another thread I wrote of my friend and documentary subject Dr. David Arnold, arguably this countries' top scientist and researcher in regards to tornadoes. He's already publicly discussed how the warmer air and changing weather patterns from the clash of warm and cold fronts (all related to currents and tides and stuff from melting fresh water polar caps) leads to greater weather variations. Storms will continue to have greater and greater intensity ... much like how DC was in a tornado warning just two days ago, previously unheard of. He's also predicted that in the next few years large city centers will see massive tornadoes with the shift from cool rural surroundings (Indianapolis) or lakes (Chicago) to warm city centers which can be devistating much like Katrina was. It's scary stuff to not try and do anything when the possible reprocussions are so great. Google his work since he can explain better than I, or any of the thousands of others who feel we don't have much time left before the tipping point. And even if we do, it can't hurt.

Kelraz has become better at name dropping (200)

Those same scientists also predicted last hurricane season to be even worse than the year that spawned the destructive force that hit New Orleans..

It was a dud year for Hurricanes by in large...

Didnt damns disrupt salmon populations and thusly effect bears. I dont hear anyoen crying about he black bear or brown bear.

Yes they did. but fortunately bears are omnivors and were able to overcome it albiet much thinner and hungrer than before. human encroachment into the habitate has had a much larger impact than the dam's. funny thing is though the biggest winner concerning damns turned out to be the Sea Lions. seems while we graciously built nice little fish ladders for our Salmon friends to use on thier journey home to make future Loxs and Keta candies for us. turns out they really are kinda dumb. so they tend to mill about the bottoms of the dams a bit confused. wich to the Sea Lions screams "SMORGASBORD!!!

Point is that as intelligent a species we are we really seem to be we miss the boat on the whole "Wisdom" thing. everytime we mess with the order of things we cause a half dozen unforseen consequences. wich leads us trying to fix three of those thereby causing a dozen and a half other things to go haywire. sorry but i view pumping so much crap into the atmosphere that it has to measured in the billions of cubic tons as messing with the natural order of things.
I think the truth is that the earth was probably headin into a warming period all on it's own. but a hundred and fifty years of humans pumping out pollution with nary a care gave it swift kick in the arse.
Sixee's right though. wont matter a bit if the whole world doesnt look to help fixing it.

Holy Crap! I was right?
That can't be right......
Velvet, you may want to rethink your stance on that....

CO2 output must cease altogether, studies warn

Research points to years of warming even with ambitious emission cuts


By Juliet Eilperin
http://msnbcmedia1.msn.com/i/msnbc/Components/Art/SITEWIDE/PartnerColorBoxLogos/WaPost_333_GCH.gif (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/front.htm)updated 35 minutes ago


The task of cutting greenhouse gas emissions enough to avert a dangerous rise in global temperatures may be far more difficult than previous research suggested, say scientists who have just published studies indicating that it would require the world to cease carbon emissions altogether within a matter of decades.
Their findings, published in separate journals over the past few weeks, suggest that both industrialized and developing nations must wean themselves off fossil fuels by as early as mid-century in order to prevent warming that could change precipitation patterns and dry up sources of water worldwide.





Using advanced computer models to factor in deep-sea warming and other aspects of the carbon cycle that naturally creates and removes carbon dioxide (CO2), the scientists, from countries including the United States, Canada and Germany, are delivering a simple message: The world must bring carbon emissions down to near zero to keep temperatures from rising further.
"The question is, what if we don't want the Earth to warm anymore?" asked Carnegie Institution senior scientist Ken Caldeira, co-author of a paper published last week in the journal Geophysical Research Letters. "The answer implies a much more radical change to our energy system than people are thinking about."
Emissions continue to rise
Although many nations have been pledging steps to curb emissions for nearly a decade, the world's output of carbon from human activities totals about 10 billion tons a year and has been steadily rising.
For now, at least, a goal of zero emissions appears well beyond the reach of politicians here and abroad. U.S. leaders are just beginning to grapple with setting any mandatory limit on greenhouse gases. The Senate is poised to vote in June on legislation that would reduce U.S. emissions by 70 percent by 2050; the two Democratic senators running for president, Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) and Barack Obama (Ill.), back an 80 percent cut. The Republican presidential nominee, Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), supports a 60 percent reduction by mid-century.
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), who is shepherding climate legislation through the Senate as chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, said the new findings "make it clear we must act now to address global warming."
"It won't be easy, given the makeup of the Senate, but the science is compelling," she said. "It is hard for me to see how my colleagues can duck this issue and live with themselves."
James L. Connaughton, who chairs the White House Council on Environmental Quality, offered a more guarded reaction, saying the idea that "ultimately you need to get to net-zero emissions" is "something we've heard before." When it comes to tackling such a daunting environmental and technological problem, he added: "We've done this kind of thing before. We will do it again. It will just take a sufficient amount of time."
Warming may continue despite CO2 cuts
Until now, scientists and policymakers have generally described the problem in terms of halting the buildup of carbon in the atmosphere. The United Nations' Framework Convention on Climate Change framed the question that way two decades ago, and many experts talk of limiting CO2 concentrations to 450 parts per million (ppm).
But Caldeira and Oregon State University professor Andreas Schmittner now argue that it makes more sense to focus on a temperature threshold as a better marker of when the planet will experience severe climate disruptions. The Earth has already warmed by 0.76 degrees Celsius (nearly 1.4 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels. Most scientists warn that a temperature rise of 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) could have serious consequences.
Schmittner, lead author of a Feb. 14 article in the journal Global Biogeochemical Cycles, said his modeling indicates that if global emissions continue on a "business as usual" path for the rest of the century, the Earth will warm by 7.2 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100. If emissions do not drop to zero until 2300, he calculated, the temperature rise at that point would be more than 15 degrees Fahrenheit.
"This is tremendous," Schmittner said. "I was struck by the fact that the warming continues much longer even after emissions have declined. . . . Our actions right now will have consequences for many, many generations. Not just for a hundred years, but thousands of years."



While natural cycles remove roughly half of human-emitted carbon dioxide from the atmosphere within a hundred years, a significant portion persists for thousands of years. Some of this carbon triggers deep-sea warming, which keeps raising the global average temperature even after emissions halt.
Researchers have predicted for a long time that warming will persist even after the world's carbon emissions start to fall and that countries will have to dramatically curb their carbon output in order to avert severe climate change. Last year's report of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said industrialized nations would have to cut emissions 80 to 95 percent by 2050 to limit CO2 concentrations to the 450 ppm goal, and the world as a whole would have to reduce emissions by 50 to 80 percent.
Glimpse into the distant future
European Union Environment Commissioner Stavros Dimas, in Washington last week for meetings with administration officials, said he and his colleagues are operating on the assumption that developed nations must cut emissions 60 to 80 percent by mid-century, with an overall global reduction of 50 percent. "If that is not enough, common sense is that we would not let the planet be destroyed," he said.
The two new studies outline the challenge in greater detail, and on a longer time scale, than many earlier studies. Schmittner's study, for example, projects how the Earth will warm for the next 2,000 years.
But some climate researchers who back major greenhouse gas reductions said it is unrealistic to expect policymakers to think in terms of such vast time scales.
"People aren't reducing emissions at all, let alone debating whether 88 percent or 99 percent is sufficient," said Gavin A. Schmidt, of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. "It's like you're starting off on a road trip from New York to California, and before you even start, you're arguing about where you're going to park at the end."
Brian O'Neill of the National Center for Atmospheric Research emphasized that some uncertainties surround the strength of the natural carbon cycle and the dynamics of ocean warming, which in turn would affect the accuracy of Caldeira's modeling. "Neither of these are known precisely," he said.
Although computer models used by scientists to project changes in the climate have become increasingly powerful, scientists acknowledge that no model is a perfect reflection of the complex dynamics involved and how they will evolve with time.
Still, O'Neill said the modeling "helps clarify thinking about long-term policy goals. If we want to reduce warming to a certain level, there's a fixed amount of carbon we can put into the atmosphere. After that, we can't emit any more, at all."
Caldeira and his colleague, H. Damon Matthews, a geography professor at Concordia University in Montreal, emphasized this point in their paper, concluding that "each unit of CO2 emissions must be viewed as leading to quantifiable and essentially permanent climate change on centennial timescales."
Steve Gardiner, a philosophy professor at the University of Washington who studies climate change, said the studies highlight that the argument over global warming "is a classic inter-generational debate, where the short-term benefits of emitting carbon accrue mainly to us and where the dangers of them are largely put off until future generations."
When it comes to deciding how drastically to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, O'Neill said, "in the end, this is a value judgment, it's not a scientific question." The idea of shifting to a carbon-free society, he added, "appears to be technically feasible. The question is whether it's politically feasible or economically feasible."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23552526/

Article I found today for you Global Warming debaters.

They should try and see what the models say about how hot it's gonna get in 4 billion years.....

This topic goes back to kindergarden teachings if you ask me and I need no scientists to prove anything to me. I really think folks have made this more difficult to understand than it needs to be.

If you do NOT treat something with tender loving care, it will show the wear, get old and be ready for the trash can.

If there is global warming, I can't say it is warming up because of our lack of care.

But why would I think throwing my trash in oceans, my car emissions in the air would not have any effect on the earth? I will say I do not know how much, and not sure with all the varibles anyone will know but not sure making it a testing ground is wise...lol Granted there are things that are more delicate than others and other things that can take the wear better. But to think we do not have a effect to some degree by our care...then I would say earth is the only thing we could say that rule would not apply to...but I don't think so.

This is a easy equation to figure out just by using common sense, IMHO.

I cant wait to start selling carbon credits what a great business that is going to be.

Hmm i could use a few, whats the APR and how long does the introductry rate last?

Read a little bit about this today after Nekko had mentioned carbon credits.

I've often said I think Al Gore will eventually hurt the movement to clean up ou environment because I thought his claims were based on shady science practices.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/03/04/weather-channel-founder-sue-al-gore-expose-global-warming-fraud

I hope when he's proven to be a con man folks will still realize that cleaning up and going green is a GOOD THING for all concerned.

Sadly, people's general reactions to such things is to discredit the message, because of the messenger....

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+Basic+Greenhouse+Equations+Totally+Wron g/article10973.htm

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025

Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years.

Of course the robots were probably made by Exxon or Haliburton.

Of course the robots were probably made by Exxon or Haliburton.

I would not be surprised...LOL They could afford making robots...LOL