How important is global warming in Maine? Not important enough for local television.Global warming is a directly observable fact. We also know that human activity is contributing to the warming of the earth. :lemon:
How do we observe a fact? Please explain the data that indicates global warming is more than a normal variation or a case of data taken in the wrong manner.
>We also know that human activity is contributing to the warming of the earth.
How do we know that it is contributing beyond a minimal, trivial effect within the homeostasis in variations of the biosphere? Al Gore's political economic opinion?
In most of these cases it's a matter of money shifting that is the impetus behind people like Gore and his businesses to benefit from fears of global warming--whatever that is supposed to be.
A very cold and icy winter is a sign of global warming...unless the winter is warm and balmy, in which case that is a sign of global warming, too.
If there is a drought, it is a sign of global warming, although rainy, wet weather is a sign of global warming, too.
High levels of hurricane activity are a definite sign of global warming, unless the expected number of hurricanes fails to materialize, in which case a hurricane season that is too calm is a sign of global warming, and a definite cause for alarm...
Welcome to the forum. As you can see there is not a consensus on this forum concerning GW. I think if you do diligent searching you will find that most of the scientific studies were altered to put forth an agenda. An agenda to tax wealthy countries of the World by the UN. Now that their Ponzi scheme is unraveling they are in total disarray. Have you seen A Gore in the news lately? He is hiding in one of his Mega Mansions, counting the $100 million he squeezed from unsuspecting Americans with his movie, books and carbon credits.
Al's at the World Economic Forum this week in Switzerland hanging out with Bill Gates and Condi Rice.
"the prospect for peace in the Middle East is likely to be a major theme, as will climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation and poverty and disease eradication."
No word on whether Al flew coach to get there. (link)
Parties each night also provide delegates with endless opportunities for winding down and schmoozing, with the annual party thrown by Internet darling Google the highlight of the social calendar for many.
That is all these big conferences are, Party, Party, Party on someone else's money.
British actress Emma Thompson, Brazilian author Paulo Coelho and Irish rock singer/campaigner Bono add a smattering of glamour and when night falls the 2,500 delegates can attend sessions on everything from the science of love to how much happiness the world can take.
Does the session on happiness have anything to do with an increasing level of anthropogenic nitrous oxide? I've read the populations of laughing hyenas is much higher than at anytime in the last 600,000 years!
was always one of those LEFT WING conspiracies designed to tax the wealth out of productive countries, and give it to the UN to "distribute" to those who have not managed to crawl out of the Stone Age...if they would ignore the dictators and their socialism, and allow capitalism and freedom, things might just improve...
No matter what, it will always come down to some scheme to get us to pay something (taxes) to simply give to THEM, who do nothing but roam the deserts...
I say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I didn't realize General John Shalikashvili was a left winger. He's one of the guys arguing that NATO needs to be prepped for a pre-emptive nuke strike "to tackle the challenges of an increasingly brutal world."
"[T]he west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The (4) key threats are: ...
Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale."
I agree with that. The Tata Nano doesn't have any airbags, rear seat belts, no specially strengthened steel, traction control or anything like that. It could be the next Pinto and explode. The Yaris and Fit are safer but the Yaris could be safer.
I was trying to be funny. You are right that they are not the safest cars out there. In a world filled with mega PU trucks the thought of getting squished in a Fit or Yaris is not appealing. I don't care if the globe is going up 10 degrees per year. Let it flood the coastal plain. I moved up to the 2000 ft level. It will give me an even better ocean view.
Hard to argue that point. I raced motoX and desert. I will not ride one on the highway. People in cars do not see you on a motorcycle. I think safety in a vehicle is relevant to who you hit or get hit by. If a motorcyclist hits a Tata the guy in the Tata wins. If a Camry hits a Tata too bad for the guy in the Tata. Same goes if a 3/4 ton PU hits a Camry the guy in the Camry is toast. NHTSA tests should give results when you get hit by a bigger vehicle. So you are safer in a big PU or SUV and let the globe warm up.
PS if a Semi hits you in your big SUV it ain't gonna be pretty. So stay clear of the big rigs.
what house are ya talkin' about, the Hawaii one or the SD one? If the SD moving "up" the hill must be a whopping 550 feet, eh?
I will escape that nasty coastal flooding here in the SE Arizona desert as well, we are sitting at 4,167 feet up. Hiking up the hill to old Fort Bowie the other day almost did me in. I was at around 5,000 feet elevation when I finally got to the old Cavalry outpost.
They mentioned that once Geronimo was captured and the Apache's were no longer a threat the Fort remained open 8 more years! We're talking about 1886 here, the fort remained open for another 8 years? Suddenly the lack of attack threats caused an abundance of tennis time and beer swilling. The Fort got an icemaker and could keep their perishables cold finally. Not to mention the advent of ice cream and now really cold beer.
Point is it took the U.S. government until 1894 to realize there weren't going to be any more Apache attacks on the Fort or the Butterfield Stage run. Is that a simile to the folly of the great Titanic?
Twas a fun hike and it was cold, no global warming going on up there. And the air was clear.
what house are ya talkin' about, the Hawaii one or the SD one? If the SD moving "up" the hill must be a whopping 550 feet, eh?
No, I am in Alpine Heights at the 2000 ft level. Our old home is at the 400 ft level in Santee. Much clearer & cleaner air up here. You can see the stars at night without all the light pollution from the city. No stinking street lights. No street noises. We love it up here. Only place better that we have found is Kapoho on the Big Island. Now that is some clean fresh air. Tested as the cleanest air on earth. Our Hawaii farm and home are at the 700 ft level just in case the ocean rises.. :shades:
Our Hawaii farm and home are at the 700 ft level just in case the ocean rises..
There is no safe place on earth according to some in the science community pondering an earth phenom termed "pole shift". If shifts did occur in past maybe another is likely. Some term it as earth cleansing. Shift would result in massive shock wave travelling around earth in advance of huge walls of water advancing over continents, islands.
Magnetic north pole moving around a lot in last few years. This could foretell a pole shift. PBS doc a few years ago dismissed any catastrophic earth effects from magnetic north moving around a lot. Were they right or wrong. Global warming worry would be moot when next shift happens.
I am a firm believer that the earth shifted somewhere in its history. There is too much tropical debris in the Arctic to believe anything other than the whole earth was tropical at one time. I don't think there is much man can do but try to keep the air and water clean in our own tiny area here on this little GLOBE.
In the 1960s I went to a special Men's meeting with this scientist/preacher. He said he was sworn to secrecy by the US government. However he felt it was just too big to keep from those that would use the information to further Christianity before it was too late. I don't remember the date this giant meteor was going to hit earth and destroy the planet. Needless to say that date has come and gone with no cataclysmic disaster. There are always going to be Al Gore types, as we can see in this 2012 blog. I am sure he is generating interest and income from those he can get to believe.
Steve, Where do you find this stuff? It is too far out for even the Drudge report to link.
I don't remember the date this giant meteor was going to hit earth and destroy the planet.
Another junk science theory - The solar system oscilliates going above and below a plane that contains a gigantic black hole in our galaxy. This hole emits very nasty radiation. When we get back to that plane, maybe 2012, all hell breaks loose upon receipt of that radiation with intense sun activity and also affecting our poles/magnetic fields.
If meteors, pole shifts, black hole radiation don't get us, we eventually will be toasted by sun in 3-5 billion years. Now that will be ultimate global warming. Solar panels on cars or anything will be very effective leading up to that era. But, by then, man might be rescued by the big triangles over Pheonix or the floating Wall-Marts over Texas.
Pretty funny 2012 stuff. I'd like to go to convention and take bets from the people who believe this. Either way I wouldn't have to work again after 2012!
Here are some interesting ideas from the author Michael Crichton on environmentalism as religion, including some good stuff on global warming...Crichton Speech
Very good read. I have to do some research on a couple things he mentions like DDT. I agree it is time to disband the EPA and dump CARB while we are at it.
I have also felt that there was nothing harmonious about the way the indigenous people lived before the white man came along. It was then as it is now cold, hard and ruthless. That is nature, cruel and heartless.
Looks like Crichton was right on with DDT being a good thing when used properly. A good example that he gives of a knee jerk reaction to science mixed with politics.
The year 2000 was a time of plague for the South African town of Ndumo, on the border of Mozambique. That March, while the world was focused on AIDS, more than 7,000 people came to the local health clinic with malaria. The South African Defense Force was called in, and soldiers set up tents outside the clinic to treat the sick. At the district hospital 30 miles away in Mosvold, the wards filled with patients suffering with the headache, weakness and fever of malaria -- 2,303 patients that month. ''I thought we were going to get buried in malaria,'' said Hervey Vaughan Williams, the hospital's medical manager.
Today, malaria has all but vanished in Ndumo. In March 2003, the clinic treated nine malaria cases; Mosvold Hospital, only three.
As malaria surges once again in Africa, victories are few. But South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. Several insecticides can be used, but South Africa has chosen the most effective one. It lasts twice as long as the alternatives. It repels mosquitoes in addition to killing them, which delays the onset of pesticide-resistance. It costs a quarter as much as the next cheapest insecticide. It is DDT.
Just 'cuz the general said it does not mean it has any credibility...he is a military officer, and I will certainly listen to his thoughts on military strategy...but just because he thinks global warming means something, means nothing...
Heck, with a large number of scientists now claiming there is no consensus, even climatologists don't know what they are talking about, and you want me to give credence to a military guy???
And it is worthy to be repetitive to note...a mere 30 years ago, "they" were worried to death about global cooling, another ice age...now they scream the EXACT opposite and you think they have ANY credibility at all???...doesn't ANYBODY know that global cooling was the CONSENSUS 30 years ago...is that not enough to prove that a consensus of scientists on the weather ain't worth a feather in the wind???
Considering that they cannot predict tomorrow's weather, or a one week forcast, how can anyone think their computer models for 10,20,30 years are anything but voodoo???
just the right war scenario for it, but, that information is now neatly tucked in that little file cabinet in the back with dust on top and spilled coffee all over that, dried up. Waiting for just the right "Cold Case" opportunist to swipe it out of there and start a cult of global cooling...again.
It'd be interesting to see if the Pentagon had war scenarios 30 years ago for global cooling.
The answer is "probably not." It was only during the last few years of the 60's or early 70's when some became aware of the cooling trend that started around 1940 and pushed it into the political arena generating some concern and even a bit of hysteria. But it was too late. The cooling trend had already begun to reverse itself before the political infection could take hold. Shortly thereafter, the fleetfooted and agile Mr. Gore recognized he could get a couple of decades of political mileage out of global warming and the rest is history.
Had the cooling trend persisted a few more years, the politicos would likely have insisted upon global cooling studies being conducted by the Pentagon and CIA. This time around, however, the political infection of global warming has had plenty of incubation time, the politicians are running a fever and we're going to have to feed it. That includes paying for defense and intelligence studies as a signal for us to take this fever seriously.
I think it will be more interesting to see how the politicians react over the next decade or two as the warming trend reverses into yet another cooling period.
Seems like citing Mikey Crichton as an expert on GW seems a little silly. But I guess he's at least as qualified as AlGore.
I watched a TV special on one of the Discovery/Learning Channel type channels called "Global Warning" and it cited many times in the past history of Earf when the temps heated up.
They were all due to unusual events, like a volcano spewing 100 million tons of lava in one eruption. There was another instance where huge amounts of undersea methane was spewing into the atmosphere. Both of those events and others like them caused atmospheric CO2 to increase in huge amounts and rose the temps on the planet 18-20 degrees.
As far as we know, there are no naturally occurring events like that going on right now, but CO2 levels are rising and the warming trend is on.
What is the cause? Has any denier pinpointed a valid reason for the current warming trend, other than CO2 levels being raised? Is there any valid science that says CO2 is not responsible for the current trend?
CO2 levels are rising and the warming trend is on.
Yes, CO2 levels may be rising to a very small degree. I do not think that it has been proven that there is a world wide warming trend. Maybe in the Arctic, not in the Antarctic. There are scientific studies that claim the earth is in a cooling trend. Which scientist do you believe? The ridiculous consensus theory has been completely blown out of the water.
Seems like citing Mikey Crichton as an expert on GW seems a little silly.
If you read his speech you would know he does not consider himself an expert in any of the fields he addressed. His point which is well founded. Admonishes us not to go off half cocked with a smattering of evidence. Whether it is GW or DDT. Not to believe someone that is a zealot with an agenda to promote.
As far as we know, there are no naturally occurring events like that going on right now, but CO2 levels are rising and the warming trend is on.
What is the cause?
Certainly volcanos and methane releases can have an affect, but not for many millions of years. In fact there have been supervolcano eruptions in Yellowstone and in indonesia in the last million years and the atmosphere is substantially below where it was for millions of years. Yet as listed in the following you will see that CO2 and higher temperatures do last for far longer than these volcanos and such.
"The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago.
During the early part of the Paleogene Period, from 65 - 34 million years ago, global climates were much warmer than today with very little ice present at the poles."
And there were periods even preceding the Paleocene during which CO2 levels were much higher and the temperatures were much lower. Historically, atmospheric CO2 levels correlate negatively with temperature. I just don't understand how the watermelons can ignore that.
[Sorry - but the word "denier" has been bandied about too much to go unchallenged! Of course, watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside. I’m sure that doesn't fit anyone hereI. Nor does the denier appellation. I won't use the term "watermelon" anymore if people drop the "denier" slur. ]
I don't see "denier" as a slur, and no one else should either. If it was a slur, that would infer that refusing to believe in Global Warming is a "bad thing." And I don't think it's a bad thing at all. It's just a personal decision people will make.
Denier is just an easy, shortcut way to say "someone who does not believe in Global Warming."
tidester says, "Historically, atmospheric CO2 levels correlate negatively with temperature."
Maybe in some eras it does. Here is a chart which puts CO2 levels and temps on the same chart and shows a correlation:
Figure 1: Fluctuations in temperature (red line) and in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide (yellow) over the past 649,000 years. The vertical red bar at the end is the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels over the past two centuries and before 2007. Click on thumbnail for a full-size image and references.
I think it is somewhat demeaning. It says you are a heretic for not believing the way the rest of the cult believes. It has religious connotations that are meant to say you are wrong and we are right. Though I love the "watermelon" moniker for those that choose to be part of the GW cult. A much more descriptive label for the zealots in the religion.
Maybe the dinosaurs had just developed BIG SUVs about 100,000 years ago, that would explain the run up in CO2.
Remember this data is somewhat suspect. It is taken from ice samples. Having watched the folks doing ice samples in the Arctic, I know it is a speculative science. It is interesting stuff. Not convincing enough evidence that I would change my lifestyle based on those findings.
Then anyone that uses centigrade to measure temperature instead of fahrenheit is suspect in my book :shades:
How about 'doubter' instead of 'denier' - 'denier' implies someone who is 'denying' obvious facts, rather that someone who is 'doubting' one complex explanation for a very complex set of observations.
That is the first time I have heard "Watermelon" used like that. You would think an old John Bircher from the 1960s would have heard the term. Though I quit looking under the bed in about 1963. They were too cult like for me. I'm not much on joining anything. Except the Edmund's Forum.....
As Tidester pointed out, words do carry a lot of baggage and they are often used to try to pigeonhole people and their beliefs or ideas, and by doing so, belittle them and obfuscate their positions.
There's a whole spectrum of GW positions between "there's no evidence" and "cars did it all." Just like throwing out "conservative" and "liberal" - it's just more code for "I hate your guts you #$@$@ idiot."
But every group comes up with shorthand on the assumption that their peers will immediately know what they mean without having to spell it all out every time.
GW made the State of the Union speech I guess:
"Bush, a latecomer to the fight against global warming, also pledged $2 billion for a new international fund to promote clean energy technologies and combat climate change." link
Comments
:lemon:
How do we observe a fact? Please explain the data that indicates global warming is more than a normal variation or a case of data taken in the wrong manner.
>We also know that human activity is contributing to the warming of the earth.
How do we know that it is contributing beyond a minimal, trivial effect within the homeostasis in variations of the biosphere? Al Gore's political economic opinion?
In most of these cases it's a matter of money shifting that is the impetus behind people like Gore and his businesses to benefit from fears of global warming--whatever that is supposed to be.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
This has been a very cold and icy winter. Send me some global warming.
If there is a drought, it is a sign of global warming, although rainy, wet weather is a sign of global warming, too.
High levels of hurricane activity are a definite sign of global warming, unless the expected number of hurricanes fails to materialize, in which case a hurricane season that is too calm is a sign of global warming, and a definite cause for alarm...
"the prospect for peace in the Middle East is likely to be a major theme, as will climate change, terrorism, nuclear proliferation and poverty and disease eradication."
No word on whether Al flew coach to get there. (link)
Parties each night also provide delegates with endless opportunities for winding down and schmoozing, with the annual party thrown by Internet darling Google the highlight of the social calendar for many.
That is all these big conferences are, Party, Party, Party on someone else's money.
British actress Emma Thompson, Brazilian author Paulo Coelho and Irish rock singer/campaigner Bono add a smattering of glamour and when night falls the 2,500 delegates can attend sessions on everything from the science of love to how much happiness the world can take.
Does the session on happiness have anything to do with an increasing level of anthropogenic nitrous oxide?
No matter what, it will always come down to some scheme to get us to pay something (taxes) to simply give to THEM, who do nothing but roam the deserts...
I say NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"[T]he west's values and way of life are under threat, but the west is struggling to summon the will to defend them. The (4) key threats are:
...
Climate change and energy security, entailing a contest for resources and potential "environmental" migration on a mass scale."
Guardian
Pretty radical suggestions, but left?
No word on whether targeting auto factories was recommended.
They need to nuke the Nano Tata, Yaris & Fit factories. Unsafe at any speed. When they get in a fiery crash it warms the globe.
The Tata Nano, India's $2,500 Car
PS
if a Semi hits you in your big SUV it ain't gonna be pretty. So stay clear of the big rigs.
I will escape that nasty coastal flooding here in the SE Arizona desert as well, we are sitting at 4,167 feet up. Hiking up the hill to old Fort Bowie the other day almost did me in. I was at around 5,000 feet elevation when I finally got to the old Cavalry outpost.
They mentioned that once Geronimo was captured and the Apache's were no longer a threat the Fort remained open 8 more years! We're talking about 1886 here, the fort remained open for another 8 years? Suddenly the lack of attack threats caused an abundance of tennis time and beer swilling. The Fort got an icemaker and could keep their perishables cold finally. Not to mention the advent of ice cream and now really cold beer.
Point is it took the U.S. government until 1894 to realize there weren't going to be any more Apache attacks on the Fort or the Butterfield Stage run. Is that a simile to the folly of the great Titanic?
Twas a fun hike and it was cold, no global warming going on up there. And the air was clear.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
No, I am in Alpine Heights at the 2000 ft level. Our old home is at the 400 ft level in Santee. Much clearer & cleaner air up here. You can see the stars at night without all the light pollution from the city. No stinking street lights. No street noises. We love it up here. Only place better that we have found is Kapoho on the Big Island. Now that is some clean fresh air. Tested as the cleanest air on earth. Our Hawaii farm and home are at the 700 ft level just in case the ocean rises.. :shades:
There is no safe place on earth according to some in the science community pondering an earth phenom termed "pole shift". If shifts did occur in past maybe another is likely. Some term it as earth cleansing. Shift would result in massive shock wave travelling around earth in advance of huge walls of water advancing over continents, islands.
Magnetic north pole moving around a lot in last few years. This could foretell a pole shift. PBS doc a few years ago dismissed any catastrophic earth effects from magnetic north moving around a lot. Were they right or wrong. Global warming worry would be moot when next shift happens.
Aren't you guys keeping up? :P
In the 1960s I went to a special Men's meeting with this scientist/preacher. He said he was sworn to secrecy by the US government. However he felt it was just too big to keep from those that would use the information to further Christianity before it was too late. I don't remember the date this giant meteor was going to hit earth and destroy the planet. Needless to say that date has come and gone with no cataclysmic disaster. There are always going to be Al Gore types, as we can see in this 2012 blog. I am sure he is generating interest and income from those he can get to believe.
Steve,
Where do you find this stuff? It is too far out for even the Drudge report to link.
Another junk science theory - The solar system oscilliates going above and below a plane that contains a gigantic black hole in our galaxy. This hole emits very nasty radiation. When we get back to that plane, maybe 2012, all hell breaks loose upon receipt of that radiation with intense sun activity and also affecting our poles/magnetic fields.
If meteors, pole shifts, black hole radiation don't get us, we eventually will be toasted by sun in 3-5 billion years. Now that will be ultimate global warming. Solar panels on cars or anything will be very effective leading up to that era. But, by then, man might be rescued by the big triangles over Pheonix or the floating Wall-Marts over Texas.
I have also felt that there was nothing harmonious about the way the indigenous people lived before the white man came along. It was then as it is now cold, hard and ruthless. That is nature, cruel and heartless.
The year 2000 was a time of plague for the South African town of Ndumo, on the border of Mozambique. That March, while the world was focused on AIDS, more than 7,000 people came to the local health clinic with malaria. The South African Defense Force was called in, and soldiers set up tents outside the clinic to treat the sick. At the district hospital 30 miles away in Mosvold, the wards filled with patients suffering with the headache, weakness and fever of malaria -- 2,303 patients that month. ''I thought we were going to get buried in malaria,'' said Hervey Vaughan Williams, the hospital's medical manager.
Today, malaria has all but vanished in Ndumo. In March 2003, the clinic treated nine malaria cases; Mosvold Hospital, only three.
As malaria surges once again in Africa, victories are few. But South Africa is beating the disease with a simple remedy: spraying the inside walls of houses in affected regions once a year. Several insecticides can be used, but South Africa has chosen the most effective one. It lasts twice as long as the alternatives. It repels mosquitoes in addition to killing them, which delays the onset of pesticide-resistance. It costs a quarter as much as the next cheapest insecticide. It is DDT.
DDT
Heck, with a large number of scientists now claiming there is no consensus, even climatologists don't know what they are talking about, and you want me to give credence to a military guy???
And it is worthy to be repetitive to note...a mere 30 years ago, "they" were worried to death about global cooling, another ice age...now they scream the EXACT opposite and you think they have ANY credibility at all???...doesn't ANYBODY know that global cooling was the CONSENSUS 30 years ago...is that not enough to prove that a consensus of scientists on the weather ain't worth a feather in the wind???
Considering that they cannot predict tomorrow's weather, or a one week forcast, how can anyone think their computer models for 10,20,30 years are anything but voodoo???
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The answer is "probably not." It was only during the last few years of the 60's or early 70's when some became aware of the cooling trend that started around 1940 and pushed it into the political arena generating some concern and even a bit of hysteria. But it was too late. The cooling trend had already begun to reverse itself before the political infection could take hold. Shortly thereafter, the fleetfooted and agile Mr. Gore recognized he could get a couple of decades of political mileage out of global warming and the rest is history.
Had the cooling trend persisted a few more years, the politicos would likely have insisted upon global cooling studies being conducted by the Pentagon and CIA. This time around, however, the political infection of global warming has had plenty of incubation time, the politicians are running a fever and we're going to have to feed it. That includes paying for defense and intelligence studies as a signal for us to take this fever seriously.
I think it will be more interesting to see how the politicians react over the next decade or two as the warming trend reverses into yet another cooling period.
I watched a TV special on one of the Discovery/Learning Channel type channels called "Global Warning" and it cited many times in the past history of Earf when the temps heated up.
They were all due to unusual events, like a volcano spewing 100 million tons of lava in one eruption. There was another instance where huge amounts of undersea methane was spewing into the atmosphere. Both of those events and others like them caused atmospheric CO2 to increase in huge amounts and rose the temps on the planet 18-20 degrees.
As far as we know, there are no naturally occurring events like that going on right now, but CO2 levels are rising and the warming trend is on.
What is the cause? Has any denier pinpointed a valid reason for the current warming trend, other than CO2 levels being raised? Is there any valid science that says CO2 is not responsible for the current trend?
Yes, CO2 levels may be rising to a very small degree. I do not think that it has been proven that there is a world wide warming trend. Maybe in the Arctic, not in the Antarctic. There are scientific studies that claim the earth is in a cooling trend. Which scientist do you believe? The ridiculous consensus theory has been completely blown out of the water.
Seems like citing Mikey Crichton as an expert on GW seems a little silly.
If you read his speech you would know he does not consider himself an expert in any of the fields he addressed. His point which is well founded. Admonishes us not to go off half cocked with a smattering of evidence. Whether it is GW or DDT. Not to believe someone that is a zealot with an agenda to promote.
As if I don't know.
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
What is the cause?
Certainly volcanos and methane releases can have an affect, but not for many millions of years. In fact there have been supervolcano eruptions in Yellowstone and in indonesia in the last million years and the atmosphere is substantially below where it was for millions of years. Yet as listed in the following you will see that CO2 and higher temperatures do last for far longer than these volcanos and such.
http://www.biologynews.net/archives/2005/06/23/deep_sea_algae_connect_ancient_cl- - imate_carbon_dioxide_and_vegetation.html
"The data indicates that between 45 - 34 million years ago the atmospheric carbon dioxide level was up to five times greater than today, with a sharp decrease and then stabilization to near modern day levels between 34 - 25 million years ago.
During the early part of the Paleogene Period, from 65 - 34 million years ago, global climates were much warmer than today with very little ice present at the poles."
And there were periods even preceding the Paleocene during which CO2 levels were much higher and the temperatures were much lower. Historically, atmospheric CO2 levels correlate negatively with temperature. I just don't understand how the watermelons can ignore that.
[Sorry - but the word "denier" has been bandied about too much to go unchallenged! Of course, watermelons are green on the outside and red on the inside. I’m sure that doesn't fit anyone hereI. Nor does the denier appellation. I won't use the term "watermelon" anymore if people drop the "denier" slur.
Denier is just an easy, shortcut way to say "someone who does not believe in Global Warming."
Much less typing to just say denier.
Maybe in some eras it does. Here is a chart which puts CO2 levels and temps on the same chart and shows a correlation:
Got that from this EPA page:
EPA page
So, once again, we do not have answers - only conflicting data. (sigh)
Hmm, what do you think of the EPA plot. Your statement would imply temperature drops with increasing CO2, not as shown on the plot.
Remember this data is somewhat suspect. It is taken from ice samples. Having watched the folks doing ice samples in the Arctic, I know it is a speculative science. It is interesting stuff. Not convincing enough evidence that I would change my lifestyle based on those findings.
Then anyone that uses centigrade to measure temperature instead of fahrenheit is suspect in my book :shades:
Let's have the Crichtons and the Gores over for dinner and hash it out.
I'm simply not going to type "someone who does not believe in Global Warming" every single time I'm referring to a denier. Sorry.
There's a whole spectrum of GW positions between "there's no evidence" and "cars did it all." Just like throwing out "conservative" and "liberal" - it's just more code for "I hate your guts you #$@$@ idiot."
But every group comes up with shorthand on the assumption that their peers will immediately know what they mean without having to spell it all out every time.
GW made the State of the Union speech I guess:
"Bush, a latecomer to the fight against global warming, also pledged $2 billion for a new international fund to promote clean energy technologies and combat climate change." link