Global Warming

[egarrard]

http://www.globalwarming.org/

Some good information on there. :thumb

[Manic Mouse]

And here I thought it was caused by cow farts.

Do they have a lot of cattle in China? Maybe we can blame it on the Pandas... :KICK ASS

[Tivon]

Can't be the human farts... :Roll Eyes

[hobbs]

al gores reasoning for global warming is total bs..

[TheUltimateGamer]

not a single day of summer yet here in england.... Global colding any1?


:lmao

[Maro]

not a single day of summer yet here in england.... Global colding any1?


:lmao

Global Warmin will cause England to be wetter in the summer and colder in winter as the Gulf Stream shifts.

Believe it :Thumb

I see they got the domain name early:




About GlobalWarming.org


This web site is a project of the Cooler Heads Coalition, a sub-group of the National Consumer Coalition.

The Cooler Heads Coalition formed May 6, 1997 to dispel the myths of global warming by exposing flawed economic, scientific, and risk analysis. Coalition members will also follow the progress of the international Global Climate Change Treaty negotiations.

Head in the sand merchants - not suprising Ed! :Yea right

[peti1212]

al gores reasoning for global warming is total bs..

I agree with that. That whole video "Inconviniet Truth" was a whole BS, and it was mostly about his biography, not about Global Warming.

[KusoSamurai]

Hey Peti and hobbs are either of you related to the car industry at all? :What the

[peti1212]

No, I am still a student. 16 years old to be precise. Why?

[egarrard]

Head in the sand merchants - not suprising Ed! :Yea rightSince I'm living in the middle of a "near-record" drought, I understand the change in climate. I just doubt humans have anything to do with it. We are just too small and the earth too big for that to happen. You are welcome to join the vain egotists who do believe that. To each their own...

There was an interview with Al Gore the other day. He said politics has lost interest to him anymore. It's probably because he's making so much money off the Global Warming suckers.



In Coffee County alone, agricultural losses because of the continuing drought are being estimated at $10 million.

Although the picture looks disastrous at present, Charlie Smartt, U.S. Department of Agriculture county executive, said recent scattered rain that fell in some areas has brought a slight glimmer of hope.

According to data released by the Tennessee Valley Authority, Smartt said, the county has received only half the normal rainfall since Jan. 1.

Although he estimates this year’s losses in gross income to farmers at about $10 million, he said actual losses would not be available until the first of 2008.

Dean Northcutt, University of Tennessee Agriculture Extension Service agent for Coffee County, commented on the early appearance of drought conditions which normally don’t occur so early in the growing season.

"This is the worst it’s been this early in the season," Northcutt said.

The drought has prompted Gov. Phil Bredesen to ask for federal emergency farm relief for the second time this year.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture has already approved assistance for Tennessee farmers affected in April by a late freeze, but Gov. Phil Bredesen said in a release Thursday that a 10-inch rainfall deficit in most of the state has caused added hardship.

"It’s obvious even at this early stage that crop and livestock losses will be heavy," Bredesen told The Associated Press. "We want to ensure that our state’s farmers have access to all of the emergency assistance available to them to help them recover from this agricultural disaster."

Bredesen asked for the agricultural disaster designation for all the state’s 95 counties.

Smartt said the Farm Service Agency based at the Grundy/Coffee County USDA Service Center at 1008 East End Rd. in Manchester, is not taking applications yet, but farmers should keep in touch for the latest word. The telephone number is 728-2472.

A maximum of $80,000 is available to farmers for crop losses, according to Smartt. The federal money, which does not have to be paid back, is in addition to any relief from crop insurance, but is limited to losses normally covered under crop insurance as the USDA uses the same procedures for determining eligibility.

In addition to the federal assistance for the 2005-2006 drought, the USDA announced June 19 that all counties in the state of Tennessee were designated primary natural disaster areas on June 15 because of losses caused by record low temperatures and a deep freeze that occurred from April 4 through April 11, making all qualified farm operators in those areas eligible for low-interest emergency loans.

Applications for emergency loan assistance due to the spring freeze should be made at the USDA Winchester Service Center. For more information, call the agency at 931-967-0631.

An article posted Thursday by The Associated Press reports the near-record drought has most affected the state’s livestock sector, where poor pasture conditions and reduced hay production has caused farmers to sell off part of their herds.

State Department of Agriculture Commissioner Ken Givens said hay production is down 50-80 percent, and three-fourths of the state’s pastures last week were rated in bad condition.

Growth of soybeans and corn has also been stunted.

Source (http://www.tullahomanews.com/news/index.asp)

It is encouraging to read that so many of the younger folks on here aren't falling for the histeria. The Global Warming schitck isn't about the environment. It's about money.

[peti1212]

Yep, that's right, there it's just the money! :beer :Thumb

[Manic Mouse]

I freaking hate the name 'Global Warming' because it is far too misleading and misunderstood.

IMO humans don't 'cause' Climate Change (My preferred name for what is going on), but they are not totally without blame. To say humanity's effects on the environment is too small to make a difference is not looking at the whole picture.

There are over 6 BILLION human beings on this planet producing carbon dioxide and methane simply by existing. That alone would not make such a huge difference as long as there were enough trees and plant life using that CO2 and producing oxygen to balance it off.

But rain forests (the largest land-based oxygen producer) are being clear cut to make for industry and habitation by yet more people. While water-based flora can use CO2 and produce oxygen too, it takes both water and land based plant life to keep the delicate planetary balance in the atmosphere. But ecosystems are constantly being destroyed by human encroachment. There are 'dirty' industries everywhere and almost as many cars & other vehicles out there as people.

There is no way I can call all of that taken together a 'small' impact on our environment and climate. However I am not stupid or ignorant enough to believe for a second that we can do anything about it in the short term. The damage is already done, and the climate will continue to change even if we could reduce our impact on our world to zero overnight. Self-promoting blowhards like Al Gore aside, the best we can do is to minimize our impact on our world wherever/whenever we can rather than living in denial that the problem even exists.

The problem does exist. We now have to figure out how to live with the consequences brought on partly by ourselves.

[bejohnson]

Here are a couple of things for thought:

From a previous post of mine in the thread "More on Global Warming. Climate Momentum Shifting" (http://www.3dgameman.com/forums/showthread.php?t=46825)

...Water vapour was responsible for 95 per cent of the greenhouse effect, an effect which was vital to keep the world warm, he explained.

"If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time."

The other greenhouse gases: carbon dioxide, methane, nitrogen dioxide, and various others including CFCs, contributed only five per cent of the effect, carbon dioxide being by far the greatest contributor at 3.6 per cent.

However, carbon dioxide as a result of man's activities was only 3.2 per cent of that, hence only 0.12 per cent of the greenhouse gases in total. Human-related methane, nitrogen dioxide and CFCs etc made similarly minuscule contributions to the effect: 0.066, 0.047 and 0.046 per cent respectively...

The real deal? (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=156df7e6-d490-41c9-8b1f-106fef8763c6&k=0)
Against the grain: Some scientists deny global warming exists

Lawrence Solomon, National Post
Published: Friday, February 02, 2007

Astrophysicist Nir Shariv, one of Israel's top young scientists, describes the logic that led him -- and most everyone else -- to conclude that SUVs, coal plants and other things man-made cause global warming.

Step One Scientists for decades have postulated that increases in carbon dioxide and other gases could lead to a greenhouse effect.

Step Two As if on cue, the temperature rose over the course of the 20th century while greenhouse gases proliferated due to human activities.

Step Three No other mechanism explains the warming. Without another candidate, greenhouses gases necessarily became the cause.

Dr. Shariv, a prolific researcher who has made a name for himself assessing the movements of two-billion-year-old meteorites, no longer accepts this logic, or subscribes to these views. He has recanted: "Like many others, I was personally sure that CO2 is the bad culprit in the story of global warming. But after carefully digging into the evidence, I realized that things are far more complicated than the story sold to us by many climate scientists or the stories regurgitated by the media.


"In fact, there is much more than meets the eye."

Dr. Shariv's digging led him to the surprising discovery that there is no concrete evidence -- only speculation -- that man-made greenhouse gases cause global warming. Even research from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change-- the United Nations agency that heads the worldwide effort to combat global warming -- is bereft of anything here inspiring confidence. In fact, according to the IPCC's own findings, man's role is so uncertain that there is a strong possibility that we have been cooling, not warming, the Earth. Unfortunately, our tools are too crude to reveal what man's effect has been in the past, let alone predict how much warming or cooling we might cause in the future.

All we have on which to pin the blame on greenhouse gases, says Dr. Shaviv, is "incriminating circumstantial evidence," which explains why climate scientists speak in terms of finding "evidence of fingerprints." Circumstantial evidence might be a fine basis on which to justify reducing greenhouse gases, he adds, "without other 'suspects.' " However, Dr. Shaviv not only believes there are credible "other suspects," he believes that at least one provides a superior explanation for the 20th century's warming.

"Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming," he states, particularly because of the evidence that has been accumulating over the past decade of the strong relationship that cosmic- ray flux has on our atmosphere. So much evidence has by now been amassed, in fact, that "it is unlikely that [the solar climate link] does not exist."

The sun's strong role indicates that greenhouse gases can't have much of an influence on the climate -- that C02 et al. don't dominate through some kind of leveraging effect that makes them especially potent drivers of climate change. The upshot of the Earth not being unduly sensitive to greenhouse gases is that neither increases nor cutbacks in future C02 emissions will matter much in terms of the climate.

Even doubling the amount of CO2 by 2100, for example, "will not dramatically increase the global temperature," Dr. Shaviv states. Put another way: "Even if we halved the CO2 output, and the CO2 increase by 2100 would be, say, a 50% increase relative to today instead of a doubled amount, the expected reduction in the rise of global temperature would be less than 0.5C. This is not significant."

The evidence from astrophysicists and cosmologists in laboratories around the world, on the other hand, could well be significant. In his study of meteorites, published in the prestigious journal, Physical Review Letters, Dr. Shaviv found that the meteorites that Earth collected during its passage through the arms of the Milky Way sustained up to 10% more cosmic ray damage than others. That kind of cosmic ray variation, Dr. Shaviv believes, could alter global temperatures by as much as 15% --sufficient to turn the ice ages on or off and evidence of the extent to which cosmic forces influence Earth's climate.

In another study, directly relevant to today's climate controversy, Dr. Shaviv reconstructed the temperature on Earth over the past 550 million years to find that cosmic ray flux variations explain more than two-thirds of Earth's temperature variance, making it the most dominant climate driver over geological time scales. The study also found that an upper limit can be placed on the relative role of CO2 as a climate driver, meaning that a large fraction of the global warming witnessed over the past century could not be due to CO2 -- instead it is attributable to the increased solar activity.

CO2 does play a role in climate, Dr. Shaviv believes, but a secondary role, one too small to preoccupy policymakers. Yet Dr. Shaviv also believes fossil fuels should be controlled, not because of their adverse affects on climate but to curb pollution.

"I am therefore in favour of developing cheap alternatives such as solar power, wind, and of course fusion reactors (converting Deuterium into Helium), which we should have in a few decades, but this is an altogether different issue." His conclusion: "I am quite sure Kyoto is not the right way to go."

II also have read somewhere (can't find it at the moment) that the planet has a good chance of starting a global cool down by the year 2020 that could possibly rival the mini-iceage of the late 18th century due to the changing cycle of the sun.

IMHO the sun which supplies the vast majority of the energy input to our ecosystem is the main controlling factor in the change of our climate. When the sun's output is higher than normal, as it is at the present, the climate warms. When the solar output drops as it is predicted to in the next 10-15 years the climate will cool. This phenomena has been occurring for millions of years and has been confirmed by many different scientist using many different methods.

The bottom line is that we should not panic and be lead down the primrose path by the doomsayers but we should use a modicum of common sense in dealing with the problem. We also should be good shepherds of the environment that has been created and take all prudent steps that are reasonable to preserve that environment.

[egarrard]

We now have to figure out how to live with the consequences brought on partly by ourselves.Oh no! Another convert to the Al Gore narcissistic ecofreak club. Whatever... :Nope

Neither you nor the rest of those 6 billion+ of us will affect things one way or the other. It's like acid rain, global cooling, the ozone hole, or any other scare-tactic-of-the-moment. They just don't hold up in the light of common sense and reason. But, enjoy your concert today. It's just one big PTL Club broadcast anyway, only this time it's lead by Little Al and not Jim Bakker.

The biggest cause of greenhouse gas production is from cows. Are you a Vegan? Depriving the cattle industry of your dollars will help drive them out of business and cut down on the number of cows farting away to the "detriment of all mankind". But...eating only plants helps speed the removal of some of the oxygenators of the Earth's atmosphere.

Darn, what a choice! :lmao


The Global Warmists worshiping their leader (and what he really thinks of them):

:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail:hail :hail:hail:hail:hail :bootyshak

[egarrard]

Head in the sand merchants - not suprising Ed! :Yea rightActually, I just skimmed through the headline list. It looked to be somewhat balanced at first glance. I thought I had found something that presented both sides on this, the weekend of Woodenstock 2007. :Sigh

[Manic Mouse]

None of the posts above refutes the fact that Climate change IS happening.

bejohnson's posts seem to blame it on higher solar output and water vapor. My question to that is:

Where does that water vapor come from? Does not water need to be heated for vapor to rise from it? So if things are not getting warmer, why is there more water vapor in the atmostphere.

As to solar output... Is there irrefutable historical data actually gathered about the intensity of solar output over the last 100 years? Exactly how accurate is that data? On the other side of the coin climate change and warming trend data ARE being accurately gathered from a multitude of sources. The only real question that remains is - what is causing it. It seems there are multitudes of theorists and 'evidence', but no real concrete one way or the other. The fact remains, that it is happening - regardless of the cause. What can we do to weather the coming storm.

Oh no! Another convert to the Al Gore narcissistic ecofreak club. Whatever...

Neither you nor the rest of those 6 billion+ of us will affect things one way or the other. It's like acid rain, global cooling, the ozone hole, or any other scare-tactic-of-the-moment. They just don't hold up in the light of common sense and reason. But, enjoy your concert today. It's just one big PTL Club broadcast anyway, only this time it's lead by Little Al and not Jim Bakker.

The biggest cause of greenhouse gas production is from cows. Are you a Vegan? Depriving the cattle industry of your dollars will help drive them out of business and cut down on the number of cows farting away to the "detriment of all mankind". But...eating only plants helps speed the removal of some of the oxygenators of the Earth's atmosphere.

Darn, what a choice!

I take it you are not one of Al Gore's biggest fans :lmao FYI, I don't much care for the guy either. He is first & foremost a politician interested only in boosting his own popularity/image by saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. Like any other politician on the planet I doubt the guy has a genuine thought in his empty head or actually believes half of what comes out of his own mouth. So please don't associate me with that USDA grade "A" bag of hot air. I may be concerned about the world we live in but what Al Gore does or says has absolutely no bearing on my own beliefs & choices.

It seems the Live Earth concerts are a LOT bigger than anything Jim Bakker has ever done. Too bad uncle Al managed to get his name associated to it - as if he had the ability to arrange something that huge. It does not make the entertainment value of this event any worse. It is regardless of you position on climate change & the environment a helluva concert! Kumbaya baybee! :smokin

You are dead right about one thing. There is nothing anybody can do to about climate change - now. But we can do what we can to minimize our own impact on the world. Now if everybody would just get with the program instead of denying the problem exists the world will end up being a better place for everybody.

I really would like to see your data the CO2 production of cows though. Should be an entertaining read. :KICK ASS

Finally, I am not a Vegan and am doing my best in eating as many of those evil, greenhouse gas-producing cows as I can. The barbecue is fired up & ready!

[bejohnson]

None of the posts above refutes the fact that Climate change IS happening.

bejohnson's posts seem to blame it on higher solar output and water vapor. My question to that is:

Where does that water vapor come from? Does not water need to be heated for vapor to rise from it? So if things are not getting warmer, why is there more water vapor in the atmosphere.

As to solar output... Is there irrefutable historical data actually gathered about the intensity of solar output over the last 100 years? Exactly how accurate is that data? On the other side of the coin climate change and warming trend data ARE being accurately gathered from a multitude of sources. The only real question that remains is - what is causing it. It seems there are multitudes of theorists and 'evidence', but no real concrete one way or the other. The fact remains, that it is happening - regardless of the cause. What can we do to weather the coming storm.



I take it you are not one of Al Gore's biggest fans :lmao FYI, I don't much care for the guy either. He is first & foremost a politician interested only in boosting his own popularity/image by saying whatever he thinks people want to hear. Like any other politician on the planet I doubt the guy has a genuine thought in his empty head or actually believes half of what comes out of his own mouth. So please don't associate me with that USDA grade "A" bag of hot air. I may be concerned about the world we live in but what Al Gore does or says has absolutely no bearing on my own beliefs & choices.

It seems the Live Earth concerts are a LOT bigger than anything Jim Bakker has ever done. Too bad uncle Al managed to get his name associated to it - as if he had the ability to arrange something that huge. It does not make the entertainment value of this event any worse. It is regardless of you position on climate change & the environment a helluva concert! Kumbaya baybee! :smokin

You are dead right about one thing. There is nothing anybody can do to about climate change - now. But we can do what we can to minimize our own impact on the world. Now if everybody would just get with the program instead of denying the problem exists the world will end up being a better place for everybody.

I really would like to see your data the CO2 production of cows though. Should be an entertaining read. :KICK ASS

Finally, I am not a Vegan and am doing my best in eating as many of those evil, greenhouse gas-producing cows as I can. The barbecue is fired up & ready!

Water vapor is always in the atmosphere due to evaporation from the surfaces of the many bodies of water. The article did not mention an increase in the amount of water vapor but stated that water vapor is 95% of the so called greenhouse gases.

If the solar output is increasing and it has been documented to be increasing at the rate of 0.05% since 1970 when accurate satellite measurements became possible. The trends as indicated by other methods show that the increase has been occurring for more than a century.(Link #1) (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html) (Link #2) (http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2003/0313irradiance.html). Check the graphics in the second link.

The increased solar output will warm the planet and the increased energy input from the increased solar radiation will increase the rate of evaporation from the bodies of water on the planet. This results in somewhat larger tropical storms and changes in the climate in both regional and global levels.

BTW Wikipedia has a very good article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation) on solar energy going back more than 1000 years.

[Maro]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

I have to say, a lot of America's focus on the issue seems to revolve around Al Gore. Much of your politics devolves into "I don't like him" rather than actual polices. It's about more than the man.

You'll find that Europe has been researching Environmental change in a impartial way for decades now - My Degree in Environmental Science is from '93 but I still keep myself current. It's easy to read websites and take them as fact - I worked hard for my point of view :Thumb

I hope you aren't implying I don't know what I'm talking about?

The website pointed out by Ed is typical of the agenda of Multinationals - they are only interested in Profits and don't give a damn about the future. The website appears to be a proper, scientific site but is merely paid for by big business to print their agenda with Pseudoscience. The same thing happens here in Oz as the major parties are funded by the polluting industries. They choose to have fancy websites that appear legitimate.

The sad fact is that 90% of the voters won't be able to discern the difference between science and propaganda. Elections are too important for Business for the truth to be obvious.

[Zenphic]

Boo, always about Global Warming. What about Global Dimming (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=39520879762623193) for some change? :P

[Manic Mouse]

Boo, always about Global Warming.

Only for some people. Others see a bigger picture than the buzzwords of the moment. Global warming is only a single part of the global climate change and environmental issues.

[bejohnson]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information.

You will find that particular Wikipedia article has some very notable contributors. Most of the material in that article can be verified by researching the data on Google and finding the original source for the data. The presentation in that article is a very good summary of the history of the solar energy condition and its effects on the planet.

Only someone that either has an agenda, that is blindly following the idea of man being solely responsible for the change in climate or doesn't under stand basic conservation of energy theory would say that the increase of solar energy input into the ecological system of the planet would not have a warming effect on the climate.

The very fact that we have seasons should dispel all doubts. In the Northern Hemisphere the earth is closer to the sun in the winter than in the summer yet the summer is hotter because the angle of the solar radiation is much more perpendicular to the planet surface than in the winter. This allows for the absorption of more solar energy into the environment which results in warmer temperatures. The change in the angle of radiation is about 47° summer to winter and just the change in the energy input to the hemisphere due to the change in angle is large enough to change the average temperature in the temperate climates by 40°F or so.

In the Southern Hemisphere where the the sun is closer to the planet in the summer months the average summer temperatures are measurably greater than the northern Hemisphere because of the increased energy levels due to the sun being about five million KM closer. The difference in distance to the sun from aphelion to perihelion is only about 3% but it makes a noticeable difference in the average temperature of the southern hemisphere compared to the northern hemisphere.

If according to the data derived from the satellites since the late '70s and the trend data from the other sources bear out that the solar radiation is indeed increasing at a rate of 0.05%/yr. from the late 19th century, then it is not only possible but logically reasonable that the temperatures would increase accordingly on the planet.

The increase in the solar energy output has also been confirmed by increasing temperatures being measured on the planets Mars, Jupiter, Saturn and Neptune. An increase in temperature has also been recorded on the satellites of those planets. I do not think that man has any input into those ecosystems.

The energy of the sun is the engine that drives the climate here on earth. Any change in that energy will most assuredly have an effect on the climate here on earth.

[Maro]

I like your style Ed, we're all wrong as usual! :hail

If Wikipedia is reliable, why is it consistently banned from references for School and University work?

I guess it doesn't matter if we are all wrong does it? :Thumb

[eire1274]

If Wikipedia is reliable, why is it consistently banned from references for School and University work?
Ed... you know I agree with the stuff you post on the GW debate, primarily because the popular GW concept isn't truthfully following "complete" scientific analysis. But, truthfully, yeah, Wikipedia has as many good contributors as the bad, and there is no way to tell who posted what!

[Tivon]

Ed... you know I agree with the stuff you post on the GW debate, primarily because the popular GW concept isn't truthfully following "complete" scientific analysis. But, truthfully, yeah, Wikipedia has as many good contributors as the bad, and there is no way to tell who posted what!

"When the fiction becomes fact.... print it."