By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
You know I KNOW that the only good data we have is the historic temps. Without that, we have NOTHING AT ALL to do climate comparisons on.
Just because I post a link to an article does not mean I agree with everything said in the article. I don't ONLY POST things with which I agree.
Just because these one group of scientists finally agree with Gary does not change my own views.
I have been and will always be consistent in my posts.
There you got it. YOU HAVE NOTHING AT ALL to back up your point of view. The scientists that you posted agree with me that temperatures taken over the years are not valid for the Climate Change argument. The equipment used is not accurate enough to use in determining if the planet has warmed less than ONE degree over any given period of time. It is just random bits of useless information.
It may make Al Gore feel important to pick up a cause to help make money for him, incidentally or intentionally. But if CO2 were the problem, then Mars would be super hot. Its atmosphere is 95% CO2; ours is less than 1%. Obviously CO2 doesn't cause greenhouse effect and subsequent warming!
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
$45 trillion needed to combat warming
TOKYO - The world needs to invest $45 trillion in energy in coming decades, build some 1,400 nuclear power plants and vastly expand wind power in order to halve greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, according to an energy study released Friday.
"Meeting this target of 50 percent cut in emissions represents a formidable challenge, and we would require immediate policy action and technological transition on an unprecedented scale," IEA Executive Director Nobuo Tanaka said.
A U.N.-network of scientists concluded last year that emissions have to be cut by at least half by 2050 to avoid an increase in world temperatures of between 3.6 and 4.2 degrees above pre-18th century levels.
This all based on predicting what the weather will be in 100 years. I just wish those jokers could tell me what the weather will be this weekend. :confuse:
When it comes to weather and politics, it is better to be Bushed than Gored.
Best Regards,
Shipo
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/weekend-edition-saudi-arabia-plans/story.a- spx?guid=%7B5608C8C0%2D4CCF%2D467C%2DAEE1%2D4D15A93E5F03%7D&dist=hplatest
Thanks to everyone in South Dakota for setting a good example, if we want to be energy independent.
Remember people pay big money to travel to the Caribbean and Hawaii just for this type of wonderful weather.
My point is no one can declare "global cooling" or "global warming" based on their locale at a given moment. It no worky likey that.
ecusbae a tnmoh ro a eekw ro a ryea soed tno a nrted keam.
Indeed on Yahoo.com news, no less the august Nobel Peace prize winning global warma sist (ex) Vice President Al Gore is supposed to have said the recent Indonesian disasters were caused by the very thing you say is not like that!!???
Sharon Stone is reported to have said that BAD karma was the reason for the recent China Earthquakes!!???
What I meant was that no one can say "global cooling made my house 32 degrees today"and no one can say "global warming made my house 115 degrees today."
Those are local weather events. Global Climate is a whole different category of weather.
And yes, AlGore and others believe that certain extreme weather conditions are exacerbated by what they say is Global Warming.
He can say or believe what he wants - he's not My Daddy.
He is given the bully pulpit to put forth his screwed up ideas. That makes it all of our business. Especially if they decide it will cost $$Trillions of dollars to fix something that is not proven to be broken. If those with scientific knowledge that disagrees with the GW Cult, they should be given equal media coverage. They are not. If they are going to teach GW in schools like it is fact, there should be opposing viewpoints allowed. Many otherwise intelligent people are jumping on the GW bandwagon so they will not be ostracized by the community. That would never enter my mind.
For those cities that have a real pollution problem like Phoenix. Tack a $20 per day fee for those that drive into the city. Unless you have a ZEV.
But how do you implement such a plan? What could a plan like that possibly be?
AlGore is on the Wacko side of life.
What to look for when purchasing carbon credits
After the Kyoto Protocol sanctioned greenhouse gas (GHG) offsets as a way for governments and private companies to earn greenhouse gas credits for trading, offsetting became a key part of major emission trading schemes, such as the European Union Emission Trading Scheme.
But a recent Financial Times report1 on the UK carbon offset market found ‘widespread failings in the new markets for carbon offsets, suggesting some organisations are paying for emissions reductions that do not take place’.
In fact, critics argue that the carbon offsets industry is allowing individuals, organisations and countries to think it is alright to keep polluting.
Chris Martin, the famous lead singer of UK rock band Coldplay, is an example of this. In an interview for The Guardian in 2005, whilst espousing the need for us all to play our part to preserve the planet, Chris revealed that he drives a fuel-inefficient sports car and frequently travels in his own private jet. He said he had bought the private jet partly so that his daughter Apple, when she is older, could fly and join him at his concerts whenever she wished to do so.
Chris’s excuse for this highly carbon intensive behaviour was that he and Coldplay offset their emissions. In 2002, Coldplay paid British company Future Forests to plant 10 000 mango trees in India to offset the emissions from creating their second album. In 2006, the UK Daily Telegraph reported that at least 40 per cent of the saplings had died as a result of water shortages – negating the greenhouse gas storage they were meant to provide.
Further, several failures around the world have fuelled criticism of offset schemes under the Clean Development Mechanism. The Clean Development Mechanism (CDM), established by the Kyoto Protocol, allows industrialised countries with a binding greenhouse gas reduction commitment to invest in greenhouse gas offset projects in developing countries. Failures of the CDM include carbon offset projects in South America and Africa.
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/features/20080602-16852.html
Very true. To read my local paper in Louisville (The Courier Journal) you would think manmade G.W is a fact. The opposing viewpoint is either not mentioned, or given a sentence or two out of about 8 or 9 paragraphs.
Rush Limbaugh sure makes the rebuttal the central theme of many of his radio shows.
So I guess that means we will soon be buying Karma Credits from Tibet.
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
Is that paper owned by the Hearst company? My local Hearst owned paper got to the point of having blaring headlines EVERY day about how GW was going to do one or another horrible things to us.
It got so bad I cancelled the paper to save some trees.
Of course you know the Hearst people are those great journalist who brought us the Spanish-American war. Look up "Yellow Journalism" if you need to know more. :mad:
2019 Kia Soul+, 2015 Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150, 2000 Chrysler Sebring convertible
I read in passing that China is investing in pressured mass transportation to link Tibet with China!? Tourist altitudes range from 7628 ft to 15748 ft.
The closest I have been to that in the US (outside of military flights) has been Pikes Peak @14,110 ft. for app 6 hours.
Owned by Gannet Co. I believe. Big bias against our police department... as well as many other liberal issues. I've thought about cancelling many times as well. They got me over a barrel though because I really need my morning paper.
Try USA Today or online papers. The local paper in Dayton (Ohio, not Kentucky) has turned into a weak mess. I resubscribed for less than what I paid last year because I told them to keep it if they were going to "up" my price.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
See Map
http://www.kcrg.com/features/19877224.html
Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman
You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas. It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline. All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth. What an amazing fraud; what a scam.
The future of our civilization lies in the balance.
That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming. According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees. Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable. He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands. He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences. The future of our civilization is in the balance.
With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.
Here is my rebuttal.
There is no significant man made global warming. There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed. But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.
Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”. For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period. That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age. Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.
Well, it is simply not happening. Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares. That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline. Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years. So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?
The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it. He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns. Oh, really. We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots. If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.
Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels. They don’t have any other issue. Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.
Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated. And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable. The Earth does not have a fever. Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.
The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper. One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy. Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming. It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.
Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements. His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve. When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements. Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.
All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.
Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide. It is a natural component of our atmosphere. It has been there since time began. It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans. It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis. Nothing would be green without it. And we humans; we create it. Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. It is not a pollutant. It is not smog. It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.
Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere. Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand. That makes it a trace component. Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth? It can’t. That’s all there is to it; it can’t.
(to be continued)
He has a lot more to say for those interested in an opinion that is not paid for by the GW Cult.
http://www.kusi.com/weather/colemanscorner/19842304.html
He SAYS it, but he says nothing to back it with FACTS. It's just one man's opinion.
Large Whoop................
>Large Whoop................
My thoughts exactly..., about Al Gore's political/social goal of pushing global warming as a reality and of having an understanding and of having a solution. He doesn't. It's just one man's opinion.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
AlGore's opinion does not matter. The science data that hundreds of global climate scientists have spent years on is what matters.
AlGore's preachings would mean absolutely nothing (and we would not be talking about it) if there was not at least SOME validity to the subject.
If GW theory was complete hogwash, it would not get the attention it has gotten from the world.
Warming is happening. The debate is Man's influence or not in that warming.
Not over the last 10 years. Did we turn it around? I don't think so. The burden of Proof rides on the back of those claiming we are the problem. Shutting down society or going backward as the GW advocates insist we do is more harmful than good. Cutting back on fossil fuel use has merit. I don't think there is REAL concern in Congress on cutting fossil fuel use. Suing companies over CO2 production is just clogging the court system with frivolous lawsuits, based on theory.
That does not mesh with what NASA has said. And I don't think NASA is inhabited by a bunch of AlGore clones.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17257
http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003100/a003188/index.html
NASA Says Climate Shifting to Cooler Temperatures
Thursday, May 1, 2008 10:33 AM
By: Phil Brennan
The allegedly warming earth is in for about 30 years of cooling according to NASA, one of the leading global warming theory advocates.
NASA has confirmed that a developing natural climate pattern will likely result in much colder temperatures, according to Marc Shepherd, writing in the April 30 American Thinker. He adds that NASA was also quick to point out that such natural phenomena should not confuse the issue of manmade greenhouse gas induced global warming which apparently will be going on behind the scenes while our teeth are chattering from a decade and a half long cold spell.
"A cool-water anomaly known as La Niña occupied the tropical Pacific Ocean throughout 2007 and early 2008. In April 2008, scientists at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory announced that while the La Niña was weakening, the Pacific decadal Oscillation – a larger-scale, Slower-cycling ocean pattern – had shifted to its cool phase."
This is also interesting from before we had GW Bush to bash..
HUNTSVILLE, Ala. (Jan. 13, 1999) — Earth’s atmosphere has gotten about one-tenth of a degree Celsius warmer in the past 20 years, with most of the warming concentrated in the Northern Hemisphere, according to data gathered by NOAA satellites and released today by The University of Alabama in Huntsville.
All of the global warming trend found in the 20-year temperature dataset, however, can be attributed to the major El Niño, Pacific Ocean heating event of 1997-1998, says Dr. John Christy, an associate professor of atmospheric science in UAH’s Earth System Science Laboratory.
"When we look at the first 19 years of satellite data, from 1979 through 1997, there is no global climate trend at all — either up or down," Christy said "Due to the powerful El Niño, 1998 was a singular year.
ONE Tenth of a degree in 20 years. That would equate to One half degree over 100 years. That is if it had not cooled the last 10 years with NASA predicting the trend to continue for the next 20 years. (See above article.)
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1999/01/990118080320.htm
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
In fact, 80 percent to 90 percent of global warming involves heating up ocean waters. They hold much more heat than the atmosphere can. So Willis has been studying the ocean with a fleet of robotic instruments called the Argo system. The buoys can dive 3,000 feet down and measure ocean temperature. Since the system was fully deployed in 2003, it has recorded no warming of the global oceans.
If we are causing warming and have not cut back on CO2 over the last decade why is the temperature NOT rising?
If there is high CO2 then there is global warming.
Mars has high CO2.
Therefore Mars has global warming.
Not true. Mars has 90% approx CO2. Cold. Cold. Cold.
2014 Malibu 2LT, 2015 Cruze 2LT,
How will they spin this? Maybe it is time to start blaming global cooling on your fellow man. This is really hilarious!!
2013 LX 570 2016 LS 460
That arctic ice is not MELTING ITSELF, now is it? Cooler oceans don't seem to be affecting THAT do they?
The 19 of the last 25 years of warmer temps in the USA had nothing do to with ocean temps. If it's 34 degrees at 5,000 feet below in the Pacific and we can still have 19 of 25 years of warmer temps in the USA, I guess that ocean temp stuff does not mean too much to US here in the Warm 'Ole US of A.
Maybe we have too much land mass in the USA. Not enough of that cool ocean.
P.S. Maybe the ocean staying cool is the result of all that arctic ice melting into it. I do know that when I put ice into a warm drink it gets cooler.
Oh, and it is NASA that made the claim that the OCEANS are 80% to 90% of the source of GW. Is it possible that NASA does not recognize your one bit of evidence as being important?
If you looked at the maps of Antarctica. They are getting colder for the most part. More actual data that the scientific community cannot explain. Maybe you should be the one to explain it to them. You seem so sure of what you believe in. It almost makes me wonder if you are running a sideline selling carbon credits or planting mango trees in the desert. :shades:
- Larsb is convinced that global warming is going on, period, full stop, the end.
- In addition, he is nearly as well convinced that human activity is the cause of such warming.
- He's fond of posting links to questionable science, just so long as it confirms what he already believes.
- If someone comes up with any contradictory science, even if it's from the same institutions that he likes to quote, then he has no problem dismissing it out of hand.
From my perspective, larsb has played the "sky is falling" card soooo many times that my eyes almost always filter out the entirety of all of his posts. Why? Because at this point nothing he says and nothing that he quotes has any credibility for me, even if God himself/herself was the source of the factoids he chooses to reference.
My suggestion, we stop wasting keystrokes on trying to convince him of something he doesn't want to believe.
Best Regards,
Shipo
Nope. I have said many times that the issue is not decided and that there is science on both sides which makes a good case either way. That is true.
shipo says, "- In addition, he is nearly as well convinced that human activity is the cause of such warming."
Nope. I have never said man is responsible. I have said it's "ridiculous for us to dismiss that possibility out of hand" and that is still true. I have never posted one time that I know for a fact or even think for sure that Mankind is part of the cause. I do think it is POSSIBLE that we are.
shipo says, "- He's fond of posting links to questionable science, just so long as it confirms what he already believes."
Nope. ALL the science on GW is "questionable", both for and against, because the issue cannot be decided by just one piece of science. It's too complicated.
shipo says, " - If someone comes up with any contradictory science, even if it's from the same institutions that he likes to quote, then he has no problem dismissing it out of hand. "
Nope. I do not dismiss anything out of hand. I say what I have said. I said that the oceans might not be warming up, might even be cooling, and that could be because of all the melted arctic ice falling into it. I have said that apparently, the LAND TEMPS for the continental USA and the Northern Hemisphere do not CARE that the ocean is not warming up -they are warming ANYWAY. As is Greenland.
shipo says, "From my perspective, larsb has played the "sky is falling" card soooo many times"
Oh really? Link to a post on this forum where I said the sky is falling......Waiting..........
Look -we all have our reasons for believing what we believe. Nature, nurture, experience, education, family and friend influences, etc.
My personal belief is that the POSSIBILITY of the Earf warming because of Mankind's activities needs to be studied. And if there is anything we can do to prevent such negative influences, then we should do it, within reason.
In the meantime, we should limit our fossil fuel usage.
An analogy for you: It's just like if you were at a doctor, and your doctor noticed pre-cancerous symptoms (if such a thing existed) and told you, "WELL, I don't know FOR SURE that you are getting lung cancer, but I think that the safest thing is to stop smoking and see if it stops the progression of the symptoms."
What would YOU do in that case?
My replies to your contentions stand alone and hold water. Trust me. I'm nothing if not consistent.
I want answers to the warming issue as badly as anyone. But the difference between myself and other people who want answers is I believe in treading lightly before the answers are solidified.
I would say the 1000s of tons of 2000 degree plus molten lava flowing into the Pacific every day for the last 20 years would be more likely to warm the ocean than a few icebergs floating from the Arctic Ocean.
You and I will never see eye to eye on climate change being man made. I am firmly convinced that it is the way the elitist in the world try to control the masses. They use wars, catastrophic events and propaganda to keep the people believing they are wiser and should be followed.
That's the stuff of conspiracy, and I am as "anti-conspiracy" as they come.
Yep, good point. I just shot from the hip on the arctic ice cooling thing. No one else I have seen has mentioned that, so I just threw it out there willy-nilly.
It was a part of my point that the ocean might be cooling but the Northern hemisphere has not gotten the memo telling it to start cooling yet.