Another data point in the Global Warming saga
- Thread starter scotthm
- Start date
Now 3D Master you're acting like a silly child! What Volcano, where? what's it called?
Can't name it?
I thought as much
Yes like a deaf man in the dark you do stumble onto something factually correct one in a while and there was a big one from Krakatao at Sumatra, maybe as big as 20 thousand hiroshimas but guess what
NEWSFLASH
Big Volcanos are a rare occurance and the majority of Volcanoes don't produce global warming gas.
They can produce CO2 but they mostly produce stuff like SO2 and other aerosols which lead to reflecting IR radiation back into space and this will cause more global cooling - remember that's cooling not warming so don't confuse the two and don't blame any rises to the global mean temperature on some mysterious volcano.
CO2 = hotter
Volcanic Aersols like SO2 = Colder
I couldn't be bothered addressing any more of your ridiculous posts since PlixTixiplik has already done a pretty good job at debunking your claims and there is already an international consensus accepting the facts behind global warming in the worldwide scientific community.
I just have one question why are you almost religiously defending CO2, do you have shares in the Oil companies or is Exxon employing you to spam this ridiculous stuff across the forums?
Can't name it?
I thought as much
Yes like a deaf man in the dark you do stumble onto something factually correct one in a while and there was a big one from Krakatao at Sumatra, maybe as big as 20 thousand hiroshimas but guess what
NEWSFLASH
Big Volcanos are a rare occurance and the majority of Volcanoes don't produce global warming gas.
They can produce CO2 but they mostly produce stuff like SO2 and other aerosols which lead to reflecting IR radiation back into space and this will cause more global cooling - remember that's cooling not warming so don't confuse the two and don't blame any rises to the global mean temperature on some mysterious volcano.
CO2 = hotter
Volcanic Aersols like SO2 = Colder
I couldn't be bothered addressing any more of your ridiculous posts since PlixTixiplik has already done a pretty good job at debunking your claims and there is already an international consensus accepting the facts behind global warming in the worldwide scientific community.
I just have one question why are you almost religiously defending CO2, do you have shares in the Oil companies or is Exxon employing you to spam this ridiculous stuff across the forums?
3D Master
Rear Admiral
It's not absurd, nor a contradiction.
My posts are not ridiculous, they are correct. And what the exact composition of volcanic gasses are, does not matter. How much they pump into the atmosphere compared to our ridiculously small amount of pollution we've pumped into the atmosphere IS. A single volcano produces ridiculous amounts gasses and dust being pumped into the atmosphere, let alone all the stuff all of them combined have pumped into the atmosphere. And yet, none of them, nor all of them combined, managed to produce a more than a short blip, a few days, months, in the most extreme cases maybe a year or two of influence on our weather and temperature. Yet somehow what we're producing, the gas with but a tiny tiny tiny tiny effect on the greenhouse effect compared to water is suddenly going to pull off what all those volcanoes combined couldn't?
THAT is what's patently ridiculous.
And another ridiculous post.
1. The utter dishonest, and ridiculous attempt to marginalize the truth of matters because you don't like it by attempting to make it look like me, and anyone who speaks the truth are in employment by "the enemy" pretty much proves how weak your position really is. If your position is strong, your arguments, the truth alone will be enough.
2. I'm not religiously defending CO2. I'm not defending CO2 at all. I'm defending the TRUTH. And why? Simple, because we're spending ridiculous amounts of money researching this pile of bullshit, while we could be using it, to actually do some good. Research technologies that would solve the problem of rapidly depleting oil reserves for one; although that's one pretty much solved. Increase the budget to scower the skies for near Earth-crossing objects. Solve hunger, and more. Instead all we do is pay researchers whenever they drop the words "Global Warming" in their research application. It has to stop.
Surely - whether or not man-made climate change is as extreme as claimed - a little less reliance on oil stocks owned largely by vile, barbaric, feudal, greedy sheikhs who keep dragging the western world into horrific costly wars to safeguard our supplies would be a good thing?
* NOAA says temperatures in the Arctic 5° above normal
* 2007 warmest year on record there, 2008 is second
* Sea level now predicted to rise one meter this century, was to be 57 cm
* temperature rise of 2.4° seen as unavoidable in studies, this probably means a total collapse of the Amazonian Rainforest
* scientists say "it will be a new world"
* 2007 warmest year on record there, 2008 is second
* Sea level now predicted to rise one meter this century, was to be 57 cm
* temperature rise of 2.4° seen as unavoidable in studies, this probably means a total collapse of the Amazonian Rainforest
* scientists say "it will be a new world"
3D Master
Rear Admiral
Between 1995 and 1997 Mars polar ice cap melted to only about 1/2 of its previous size.
Venus increased in luminosity and thus temperature in the past 6 years.
Neptune, similarly increased in luminosity rapidly in the past years.
Same with Jupiter and Neptune, and their moons.
But you know the entire solar system is heating up and going through its motions, but our planet is special, yes sir, it's not doing the things for the same reason the rest of the solar system is, nope the only reason Earth is heating up is because of the CO2 that we pump into our atmosphere.
Arctic temperatures were much higher at some points the past. Here's a study of fossil remains indication that the average arctic temp was around 14 degrees C (that's a bit under 60 degrees F...)
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/news/fossil.html
Get this... "Magmatism at six large igneous provinces at this time suggests that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions helped cause the global warmth."
WHAT EVIL REPUBLICAN FACTORY KILLED THE ARCTIC DINOSAURS????
None, silly.
I've personally dug up fossilized sand dollars 2 lots over from my dads house in north Florida. Even to the 10 year old kid I was then, it obviously pointed to the fact that the sea bed had been that far "inland" at some point in the ancient past.
The only difference *this time* is that angry landlords will lose their coastal property if the allegedly man made global warming continues unchecked.
Give it a while, it'll cool off again.
AG
http://www.earth.rochester.edu/news/fossil.html
Get this... "Magmatism at six large igneous provinces at this time suggests that volcanic carbon dioxide emissions helped cause the global warmth."
WHAT EVIL REPUBLICAN FACTORY KILLED THE ARCTIC DINOSAURS????
None, silly.
I've personally dug up fossilized sand dollars 2 lots over from my dads house in north Florida. Even to the 10 year old kid I was then, it obviously pointed to the fact that the sea bed had been that far "inland" at some point in the ancient past.
The only difference *this time* is that angry landlords will lose their coastal property if the allegedly man made global warming continues unchecked.
Give it a while, it'll cool off again.
AG
One more reason to take the global warming hysteria with a grain of salt...
---------------
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
---------------
Go here to see what a real scientist has to say, sponsored by Shell:
http://www.commentvisions.com/month/march
http://www.commentvisions.com/month/march
Well the few thousand required for a study of mating habits of bunnies is nothing compared to the billions if not trillions needed for genuine progress in switching from general reliance on fossil fuels to renewable sources of energy and new technology, I think it is not fair to assume this is what is affecting progress in this area.
Also, the study you mention is probably as part of a genuine effort to determine future effects of climate change on natural populations. Bunnies are important, as their numbers affect the amount they eat, the influence of their activities on the rest of the ecosystem, predators, the whole shebang.
As for the rest of the thread I thought that the late great Michael Crichton's study of the devbate in "State Of Fear" remains the most balanced and constructive analysis of the debate I have read. I agree with his conclusions as well, where he basically says that there is doubtless some influence from human activity of climate change, but that to do anything drastic or reckless too quickly with resulting economic damage will have worse effects on the everyday lives of the world's people than climate change will.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
:sighs: No.
Germany is already using 20% Solar power to generate power in their country. Solar is going through a revolution. The panels increase in size, efficiency, and reduce in price constantly. It is an industry that's rapidly growing, and if you don't invest in it, you'll fall behind and watch countries like Japan and Germany become the leaders and boost their economy while you'll be stuck buying from them.
Investment in this, not only doesn't cost billions and trillions of dollars, you get an economy boost free with the right.
But instead, nobody (except a very few countries) is putting any money in doing it, and the UN and other countries, keep spending (what by now DOES amount in total to billions and trillions) in "research" into "global warming". Which should tell you why scientists keep purporting the bullshit: it's a cash cow.
No, they ARE NOT. The guy simply wanted to research the bunnies, but it wouldn't get him funding. So he added "global warming" in his research proposal, and presto funding.
Again with the cash cow.
:sighs:
Our oil is running out. We need to stop burning it uselessly. THAT is why we need to change to renewable fuels NOW. If haven't done so by the time oil runs out; we're going back to the 19th century folks.
We need to change, and we need to change now, but it has nothing to do with our climate. But as long as countries keep their heads in the sand, and keep funding more "global warming" research instead of realizing what is really going on and how close we are to the oil faucet only producing droplets if even that, nothing changes.
Rain?
On a positive side note, are you the graphics guy who did so much work on the Star Fleet Museum site? Some of those Romulan War ships are very good.
Last edited:
3D Master
Rear Admiral
The issue ISN'T "Is there a climate change occuring" because it's a fact that their is. Whether patterens are shifting across the globe.
The issue is: "How much of this climate change is caused because of mandkind's technologies; and if mankind's actions are the MAJOR contributor to this; what can mankind do to reduce the effect?"
From what I've read, I'm not convinced that it's majority cause is all the stuff manufacturers have been pumping into the enviroment alone; but the sum total of everything from the increase in human populattion; the deforestation of the rain forrests; thne fact that the magnetic field of the Earth itself is at the weakest point it's ever been measured; and the magnetic poles are about to shift (from evedince gathered this is another natuaral process and the last time this happened was 780,000 years ago; although some scientists state it can occur every 20,000 - 50,000 years, but there's no set pattern. Some NASA scientists think the next pole reversal could occir in 2012). While I'm not against efforts to clean the Earth's enviroment and limit pollution be it gas, solid, etc; the current hysteria about 'lowering your corbon footprint to save the world' seems a bit ridiculous to me. The one thing that strikes me about Al Gore is how 'sure' he is of his scientific evidence. Problem is, in the past 'sure' science hasn't been that 'sure'.
Hell, Astronomers believed for centuries that Earth was the only remaining volcanically active body remaining in the Solar System. The Gallelio probe shot that 'scientific fact' down; etc.
Again, I'm all for reducing pollutants across the board; but I also think the fact that most 'Global Warming' proponents just focus primarily on reducing greenhouse gasses is a bit short sided. There maybe a number of causes and it may honestly be that a number of them are (unfortunately) beyond our control. But, honestly, I don't trust scientists with a major agenda, because it's been shown in the past that such scientists are more concerned ith fitting the data into whatever theory they have, as oppossed to continuing to analyze data even if it starts to prove their assumptions are in error; and something else might be going on.
That does not contribute to the debate does it? I'm trying to have a discussion about your posts with you here, which shows you respect, is it too much to ask for the same?
Of course it costs billions of dollars - and worldwide switching to renewables will cost trillions. What do you think it would cost? Pennies?
That is not an argument to not do it - but my point stands - a few thousand spent on research into rabbits will not change a single thing.
I am sure scientists do exagerrate the strength of their case for research and whack global warming in as a buzzword to help get grants.
That does not mean that studies on bunnies are the reason a genuine lack of desire exists to switch to renewables. At the root of this might be greedy oil companies, corrupt politicians, the far-right, or most likely ALL of these and many more.
Well maybe he found out some interesting things about bunnies in the process? Should zoology as a science be abandoned?
Well I do not disagree on the need for renewables sooner rather than later - but Crichton does not argue against that in his book. He argues against targets based on CO2 emissions, which you seem to be doing yourself.
Well Obama might well bring change in the US from Bush, the UK is trying to do things now (but in Britain we do not do anything until it is too late) and you have stated examples yourself of other European countries making progress.
Fingers crossed I guess.
Doesn't have to fall immediately. Just falls. Period.
3D Master
Rear Admiral
If that was all that mattered, then water vapor wouldn't be the biggest contribution to the green house effect.
None of which matters, as hydrogen cars don't produce more water vapor then gas cars.
I'm sure scientific news found on a political site has to be taken with a grain of salt, but I thought this was an interesting find. I've personally been a bit skeptical about our 'certainty' of the causes of global warming, but this surprised me.
---------------
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
---------------