Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 28

Thread: The Sun and Global Warming

  1. #1
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default The Sun and Global Warming

    Research paid for by oil companies has tried to make a false claim that the sun is to blame for global warming but they are lying. Big surprise there, right





    'The sun's energy output has barely varied over the past 1,000 years, raising chances that global warming has human rather than celestial causes, a study shows.

    'the sun's brightness varied by only 0.07 per cent over 11-year sunspot cycles, far too little to account for the rise in temperatures since the Industrial Revolution.

    'results imply that over the past century climate change due to human influences must far outweigh the effects of changes in the sun's brightness' - US National Centre for Atmospheric Research spokesman

    'Most experts say emissions of greenhouse gases, mainly from burning fossil fuels in power plants, factories and cars, are the main cause of a 0.6 degrees Celsius rise in temperatures over the past century.'

    more links on this subject-
    Last edited by T-10; 03-13-2007 at 12:47 PM. Reason: adding links

  2. #2
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    T-10 Fair enough BUT then YOU tell us HOW the Ancient Romans were growing wheat, Med. olives and wine grapes in Northern England and the Northern Rhineland 2,000 years ago. And why it couldn't be done today; even with the Global Warming that's supposedly occured. You tell us how the Vikings were farming and raising cattle on Greenland 1,000 years ago when most of Greenland was not covered by ice and permafrost year round. How do you explain the Little Ice Age aka "The Big Chill" which ran from about 1300 to 1680 ( or 1850 depending on who you talk to ). How do you explain many U.S. regions that in the last ten (10) years have experienced record setting hot summers BUT also record setting COLD winters. According to GW theory they should only be getting the record setting heat. If it's not increased solar activity; what is it ? And most importantly, how do you explain the fact that Mars has been getting WARMER !

    The links you provided present ONE side of the debate. There are just as many scientists saying that it is solar activity and/or changes
    in the Earth's orbit relative to the sun that account for the period of warming we've experienced. Does anyone seriously think that the Earth's orbital pattern is always identical year after year without any naturally occurring deviations ? Even the scientists quoted ADMIT
    that their findings are NOT definitive and some are relying on astronomical observations made 400 ( FOUR HUNDRED ! ) years ago !
    As though Galileo and his contemporaries had anything remotely resembling the sophisticated equipment that NASA and other agencies have
    today ! Others among those quoted in YOUR links say that rather than sunspots; it could be ultra-violet or other types of solar radiation
    that are having the noted effects on our climate.

    Concerning how far the "Little Ice Age" actually occurred it is true that we don't really know whether it affected the Southern Hemisphere
    ( because of the lack of climatological record keeping by the Incas, Micronesians and Australian Aborigines etc.) We DO know that North America was affected. The winter of 1780-1 was THE coldest EVER recorded. It was one of only two winters when the East River and Great Lakes froze over and the only one when New York Harbor froze over and people literally walked from Staten Island to Manhattan across the ice.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-13-2007 at 01:53 PM.

  3. #3
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    I am not a scientist, Eric. I don't know the answers off hand and honestly I am not feeling 100% today so I don't feel like embarking a big research project either.

    I am plenty comfortable in siding with the vast majority of the world’s scientists on the matter of global warming being caused by the increased use of fossil fuels. I have reviewed the opposite opinion many, many times and I find it to be based on the wishes and demands of the major oil companies and their political and financial dependants and supporters.

    I presented a topic and opinion based on factual scientific findings. I also backed that up with evidence. If you or anyone else wants to try and counter the OP position, fine.

    The interested readers of this thread can decide for themselves what position they find to be a more credible one.

  4. #4
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    I am plenty comfortable in siding with the vast majority of the world’s scientists on the matter of global warming being caused by the increased use of fossil fuels
    Perhaps you would not be so comfortable if you took the time to research where an 'official concensus' that global warming is primarily due to human consumption of fossil fuels will lead. Research the fact that the Kyoto treaty will essentially make it impossible for any energy intensive industry located anywhere besides China, India etc. to operate at a profit. Research the fact that a 'carbon tax' in whatever form it is actually implemented under will deliver a death blow to the already ailing 'middle class' suburban way of life.

    From a political / governmental standpoint, the global warming 'concensus' arguably fills the same role as the 'second-hand smoke' concensus of 5-10 years ago., in that it will be used to provide the 'legal authority' for the enactment of new taxes, for the enactment of rationing laws etc. as well as putting us on an irreversable track towards a truly global economy (where unskilled workers in the US and Europe will enjoy the same standard of living as their counterparts in China and India).

    You may be content living in a big city apartment and riding a bicycle or mass transportation everywhere, or living / working on a farm and not going anywhere, but there are 200 million Americans who do not wish to do this. Moreover, our cities do not have the infrastructure or housing stock to handle it even if future laws and after-tax economics forces them to do so or go bankrupt.

    Back on topic, in addition to the Mars warming study, space probe data is now being collated to explore warming on other planets in our solar system as well. Lately, many new study publications appear to support the increasing solar / cosmic energy theory. As I posted in another thread, I tend to put a great deal of creedence in the studies of warming of other planets, because A) methodology is not a variable, B) actual measurements are being used rather than 'computer models', and most of all C) it totally removes human activity from the list of plausible causes for warming

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-13-2007 at 03:08 PM.

  5. #5
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    You may be content living in a big city apartment and riding a bicycle or mass transportation everywhere, or living / working on a farm and not going anywhere, but there are 200 million Americans who do not wish to do this.
    I am suffering the flu today and my patience is thin at the moment so forgive me for being so blunt but I have something to say to you.

    After reading numerous postings written by you on a variety of subjects I am afraid I can not take anything you have to say as being worthy of respect or consideration. The reason for this is because of your tendency to promote misinformation which I feel is obviously based on your own massive political agenda.

    If you wish to contribute to topics I start, so be it. That is what a discussion forum is for ofcourse. However, you might as well just address the general readership or specific members other than myself because nothing you have to say will be taken serious by me.

    In other words, don't waste anymore your time trying to force your belief system on me personally because it will never be successful.

    As I mentioned before I have presented the topic and expressed my opinion which bythe way is based on factual scientific findings. I also backed that up with evidence. Therefore I have nothing more to add at this time and will refrain from further partcipation in this topic. I am content that I have presented a strong case to support my position and I am just not the type of person that needs to have the final word on every subject matter.

    If you or anyone else wants to try and counter the majority of the scientific community opinion on the sun and global warming, go for it.

    The interested readers of this thread can decide for themselves what position they find to be a more credible one.

  6. #6
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    (snip)"Homeowners who refuse to make their properties energy efficient will face financial penalties under drastic government plans to transform Britain into the world's first 'green' economy.

    Ministers yesterday promised deep cuts to greenhouse gas emissions that they warned would mean everyone in the country having to 'live, work and travel differently'. "(snip)

    (snip)"Critics said the plans raised the prospect of 'eco-snoopers' inspecting homes.

    Blair Gibbs, of the Taxpayers' Alliance, said: "It's bad enough that politicians want to take so much of our money away in tax. For them also to intrude into our homes in order to have the ability to penalise us even further is simply unacceptable."

    Unveiling the plans, Environment Secretary David Miliband said it would be "painful" to continue to have an "energy inefficient home". Those that did would face higher bills, he added.

    Transport will also undergo radical overhaul as Britain moves towards becoming a "low- carbon economy", the Government said.

    Vehicles will be made more fuel efficient, effectively forcing current gas-guzzling models off the road.

    The Government is to work with the EU on new laws setting a new average emissions target of 130g of carbon dioxide per kilometre - well below most of today's models - with further reductions to follow.

    People are to be encouraged to make 'more sustainable' travel choices, including greater use of public transport, walking and cycling. The Government is also to invest in solar, wind and wave power.

    A draft Climate Change Bill published yesterday dismissed sceptics, insisting there was 'no longer any real debate' that climate change was happening and man-made emissions were the main cause"(snip)

  7. #7
    God/dess scarlett_vancouver's Avatar
    Joined
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Vancouver, BC
    Posts
    6,699
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 22 Times in 20 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    How do you explain many U.S. regions that in the last ten (10) years have experienced record setting hot summers BUT also record setting COLD winters. According to GW theory they should only be getting the record setting heat.
    Global warming is a bit of a misnomer...the process is too complicated to just have it amount to 'everywhere is hotter'.

    For example, global warming can cause a reduction in the temperature differential of ocean currents that would normally form warm fronts; without this difference in temperature, the wind formed is weaker and warmed air masses from the south might not travel far enough to reach N.America and counteract arctic winds.

    That's just an example.

    While overall global temperatures are warming on average, there is a good bit of cooling that also results from the greenhouse effect.

    Feature costumes for sale!

  8. #8
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    SCARLETT- The ocean temp. link to Global "Climate Change" has also been called into serious question. First, it was shown that a number of ocean monitoring stations were located very close to thermal vents in the ocean floor and the measurements taken did NOT take this factor into account i.e. there were variable "hot spots" throwing off the readings. More importantly, it was also shown that a number of monitoring stations recorded COOLER temperatures which were either mysteriously left out of reports or explained away by blaming them on El Nino and La Nina.

    T-10- Feel better soon. I'm sorry you have the flu and wish you a speedy recovery.
    If your latest post addressed to Melonie was based on viral crankiness; I think we can all understand. Otherwise, I respectfully suggest that you seriously re-think what you wrote.
    Just as you are absolutely entitled to your opinions; so too is Melonie. NOBODY is trying to force you or compel you in any way, shape or form to agree with them. It must be noted that no poster is more agreeable to disagree with than Melonie.
    I can't see a single valid reason for you to try and turn off your mind to sources of information - nothing more; nothing less. You of course retain your ability to accept or reject said info for any reason pleasing to you. Likewise, it is grotesquely unfair for you to accuse Melonie of deliberately posting misinformation or having an "agenda" without evidence and this is the second time you have done so. Being a virtual absolutist on the First Amendment ( and it is clear that Melonie is too ) I'd respectfully suggest to you that the best antidote or cure for
    "bad" information is "good" or at least "better" information and I commend and appreciate your eforts to present just that. Therefore it seems strange, to say the least, that when legitimate questions are raised about the authenticity; or accuracy or veracity of your info that rather than defend or explain it, you choose to attack one of your questioners in what imo is an unfair and unjustified way. Worse yet, it effectively puts you in the same boat with those who don't want to even look at the science supporting something like Evolution because what you have clearly said to Melonie is: " Please don't burden me with FACTS or sources thereof. I have made up my mind and don't care where the truth may actually lie. Oh, and by the way, since I disagree with your opinions so strongly you must be trying to indoctrinate me so I'll just ignore you and your arguments. " Is that REALLY what you want ?
    Do you REALLY wish to come across as so close minded that it wouldn't matter to you if it were PROVEN tomorrow that GW ( or GCC ) was in fact erroneous ?
    Do you really want to effectively come across as intellectually equivalent to a Creationist or Flat Earther ? If you do or somehow find it more suitable to do so, all well and good. Afaic, you are more than welcome to opine and post as much as you want. I just find it difficult to believe that you're really so disrespectful of opinions different from your own and of those with whom you disagree. If that proves to be the case, so be it. Suffice it to say that no one; not me; not Melonie; has ever expressed similar sentiments towards you and/or your opinions.

  9. #9
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    interesting read re one of the Kyoto Protocol's originators and how to make money via 'environmentally friendly' green companies ...



    (snip)"It's a strange global warming partnership that Strong and Gore have, but it's one that's working.

    Strong is the silent partner, a man whose name often draws a blank in the Washington cocktail circuit. Even though a former Secretary General of the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (the much hyped Rio Earth Summit) and Under-Secretary General of the United Nations in the days of a beleaguered Kofi Annan, the Canadian born Strong is little known in the Unites States. That's because he spends most of his time in China where he works to make the communist country the world's next superpower. The nondescript Strong, nonetheless is big cheese in the world of climate change, and is one of the main architects of the coming-your-way-soon Kyoto Protocol.

    Gore is the glitzy, media approved front man in the partnership, the flashing neon lights on the global stage warning the masses of the end of Earth, as we know it, and Hollywood's poster boy for greening the silver screen."

    (snip)"But the conduct of Al Gore and Maurice Strong in the capitalist world is one for the books. It's a side of them that may have remained unknown had it not been for the investigative talent of the Executive Intelligence Review (EIR).

    The tawdry tale of the top two global warming gurus in the business world goes all the way back to Earth Day, April 17, 1995 when the future author of An Inconvenient Truth traveled to Fall River, Massachusetts, to deliver a green sermon at the headquarters of Molten Metal Technology Inc. (MMTI). MMTI was a firm that proclaimed to have invented a process for recycling metals from waste.Gore praised the Molten Metal firm as a pioneer in the kind of innovative technology that can save the environment, and make money for investors at the same time.

    "Gore left a few facts out of his speech that day. First, the firm was run by Strong and a group of Gore intimates, including Peter Knight, the firm's registered lobbyist, and Gore's former top Senate aide," wrote EIR.

    "Second, the company had received more than $25 million in U.S. Department of energy (DOE) research and development grants, but had failed to prove that the technology worked on a commercial scale. The company would go on to receive another $8 million in federal taxpayers' cash, at that point, its only source of revenue.

    "With Al Gore's Earth Day as a Wall Street calling card, Molten Metal's stock value soared to $35 a share, a range it maintained through October 1996. But along the way, DOE scientists had balked at further funding. When, in March 1996, corporate officers concluded that the federal cash cow was about to run dry, they took action: Between that date and October 1996, seven corporate officers--including Maurice Strong--sold off $15.3 million in personal shares in the company, at top market value. On Oct. 20, 1996--a Sunday--the company issued a press release, announcing for the first time, that DOE funding would be vastly scaled back, and reported the bad news on a conference call with stockbrokers.

    "On Monday, the stock plunged by 49%, soon landing at $5 a share.By early 1997, furious stockholders had filed a class action suit against the company and its directors. Ironically, one of the class action lawyers had tangled with Maurice Strong in another insider trading case, involving a Swiss company called AZL Resources, chaired by Strong, who was also a lead shareholder. The AZL case closely mirrored Molten Metal, and in the end, Strong and the other AZL partners agreed to pay $5 million to dodge a jury verdict, when eyewitness evidence surfaced of Strong's role in scamming the value of the company stock up into the stratosphere, before selling it off.

    In 1997, Strong went on to accept (money) from Tongsun Park, the Korean man found guilty of illegally acting as an Iraqi agent, $1 million from Saddam Hussein, which was invested in Cordex Petroleum Inc., a company he owned with his son, Fred.

    In that year, Gore, still U.S. vice president, was making news for "taking the initiative in creating the Internet."

    The leaders of the man-made global warming movement, you might say, get around.

    Meanwhile Jumbo's still in global warming's living room, but the duo with the tiniest carbon footprints on earth continue to just tiptoe past him."(snip)
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-14-2007 at 02:41 PM.

  10. #10
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Melonie View Post
    interesting read re one of the Kyoto Protocol's originators and how to make money via 'environmentally friendly' green companies ...


    People should know that Canada Free Press has been shown to not be a reputable source by several people.
    Quote Originally Posted by The Snark View Post
    As for the reliability of Canada Free Press, its editor once plagiarized an article from The Onion without realizing it was satirical:




    'Nuff said.
    Quote Originally Posted by T-10 View Post

    Another interesting thing I learned about this group has a history of published discriminatory and racist comments against for example- people in Turkey, people of Jewish faith and homosexuals.

    Another favorite of Canada Free Press is the Family Research Institute which has a well documented history of homophobia and other Fundlementalist causes such as Anti-Choice and opposing sex education. I am pretty sure they are also one of those nutcase groups that thinks the planet is only like 5,000 years old.

    Here is a brief description of the Canada Free Press the link to an over view of what Canada Free Press is all about-

    'The magazine currently has a strong US-style Republican slant in its writing; its website presently has large sections dedicated to climate change denial and American fundamentalist Christianity'

    Quote Originally Posted by Jenny View Post
    Canada Free Press is NOT a well thought of source, considered to be reliable in any capacity. It is not a conservative/liberal issue. It's not like the conservative economics professors out in Alberta would be okay with citations from Canada Free Press, but the liberal environmental professor in Toronto would not. NOBODY would be okay with a citation from Canada Free Press.

  11. #11
    DJ Maimed
    Guest

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    T 10; If its not too much to ask, please spare those with aggregate intelligence qoutients above the average ladies shoe size the insults and inane diatribes. Since ye lack the facts...why not peruse these little tidbits of Carbon Dioxide acedamia;

    (I do believe the Oak Ridge National Laboratory might be considered a wee bit credible)



    These should put you on the road to removing your cranium from thou buttocks regarding the subject of Carbon Dioxide. If you are incapable of deriving the basic fact that CO2 levels were 4 - 14 TIMES......4 - 14 TIMES........4 - 14 TIMES the current level during the Cretaceous period (you know the one where Fred Flinstone and all those darn rock quarrys existed fouling things up) and even much higher in previous times, then maybe you should hold the gun till ya gets yo facts straight!

  12. #12
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    prisonplanet on a recent NY Times Article ...



    "Taxing Us for Breathing

    Robert Tracinski
    Real Clear Politics
    Monday, March 12, 2007

    Last week, the New York Times published an extraordinary editorial complaining that "Right now, everyone is using the atmosphere like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." The Times editors suggested that the government "start charging for the privilege" by imposing a "carbon tax."

    We all knew it would eventually come to this: the New York Times thinks the government should tax us for breathing.

    Of course, the editorial was supposed to be aimed at big corporations who build coal-fired power plants--but why should the logic stop there? Right now, eight million people are walking around on the streets of New York City heedlessly inhaling precious oxygen and exhaling carbon dioxide, treating the skies over their fair city "like a municipal dump, depositing carbon dioxide free." Shouldn't they be forced to pay for the "privilege," too?

    And the connection is a logical one, because the generation of power by industrial-scale power plants is as much a vital activity as breathing.

    I mean this in a literal, biological sense. In biology, "respiration" doesn't just refer to the act of breathing; it refers to the chemical reactions made possible by breathing. My dictionary defines this sense of "respiration" as "the processes by which a living organism or cell takes in oxygen from the air or water, distributes and utilizes it in oxidation, and gives off the products of oxidation, especially carbon dioxide." (Wikipedia has all the biochemical details.)

    Sound familiar? That's right: there is no difference in principle between your cellular mitochondria and a coal-fired power plant. Our lungs take in oxygen and emit carbon dioxide so that they can provide the energy our cells use to keep us alive and to allow us to move, to grow, to thrive. Ditto for the power plants. They augment the biological process of respiration with a process you might call "industrial respiration," which we can define as follows: the processes by which a living civilization takes in fuel, distributes and utilizes it in oxidation, and gives off the products of oxidation, especially carbon dioxide.

    There is an old, tired slogan used by environmentalists: that the Amazon jungle is the "lungs of the earth," because its mass of overgrown vegetation works the opposite way our lungs work: plants take in carbon dioxide and give off oxygen, so that the Amazon allegedly produces something like 20% of the world's oxygen. It turns out this isn't true. An old-growth forest like the Amazon releases more carbon dioxide, from rotting vegetation, than it absorbs. But the problem with that slogan is much deeper. It denies the fact that the real lungs of the earth--or at least, the lungs of global human civilization--are power plants. They take in fuel and turn it into the energy we use to live.

    For all of their "green" pose, environmentalists don't have a genuine biological perspective on the world. They regard mankind as if we were non-biological. They talk endlessly about the "ecosystem" required for the survival of every creature on earth--but they never ask what is mankind's means of survival.

    Man's primary organ of survival is his brain. We use our minds to understand the world around us, to derive scientific principles, and then to put science to work for us by rebuilding our surroundings to better suit our needs. The inscription that rings the rotunda of the Museum of Science and Industry in Chicago--built in an age that had a better appreciation for progress--sums it up perfectly: "Science discerns the laws of nature. Industry applies them to the needs of man." That is the real biological imperative of human existence.

    Industry is not "unnatural," not in any fundamental sense. It is the product of our biological means of survival, our minds, and it is the means by which we secure our survival and extend the reach of our action. And central to all of this is the development of "industrial respiration," the process by which we turn oil, natural gas, coal, or uranium into energy we can use.

    That's why it is absurd to complain that America is "addicted" to oil. An addiction is an unhealthy dependence. So would you say that you are "addicted" to breathing, because you feel like you will die if you stop doing it? Of course not. The only difference between industrial respiration and the kind that we do with our lungs is that a human body can only use a limited quantity of energy, while the power made available to us by industrial respiration is unlimited. That's not a problem. In fact, it's the whole secret by which we rose from the cave to the skyscraper--and from the campfire to the power plant--with the result that we can now reliably stretch our lives into their eighth decades and beyond. It is the added power from industrial respiration that makes the modern human animal a healthy, vigorous, thriving organism.

    That is why the environmentalist crusade against industrial power plants is so dangerous. In attempting to construct a phantom threat to our survival, the dubious theory of anthropogenic global warming, they are attempting to suppress the central source of human vitality.

    What would you say if someone told you that he was concerned you might get sick because it's hot and humid out--and then told you that his "cure" was to constrict your supply of oxygen by 80%? Would you believe that he was sincerely concerned with your health? Well, you had better start asking the same question of Al Gore and the rest of the global warming fanatics, because that's exactly what they're trying to do. In denouncing fossil fuels, they are seeking to tax, reduce, and ultimately to eliminate the fuels that provide our civilization with 80% of its energy. Their goal is a fatal constriction of the process of industrial respiration.

    That is the deepest, fullest reason why a "carbon tax" is just as dangerous as a tax on breathing.

    If we really care about the biological health of human civilization, we need to guard it against the environmentalist charlatans who are seeking to suffocate the real lungs of the earth."

    ~
    Last edited by Melonie; 03-17-2007 at 03:56 AM.

  13. #13
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by DJ Maimed View Post
    T 10; If its not too much to ask, please spare those with aggregate intelligence qoutients above the average ladies shoe size the insults and inane diatribes. Since ye lack the facts...why not peruse these little tidbits of Carbon Dioxide acedamia;

    (I do believe the Oak Ridge National Laboratory might be considered a wee bit credible)



    These should put you on the road to removing your cranium from thou buttocks regarding the subject of Carbon Dioxide. If you are incapable of deriving the basic fact that CO2 levels were 4 - 14 TIMES......4 - 14 TIMES........4 - 14 TIMES the current level during the Cretaceous period (you know the one where Fred Flinstone and all those darn rock quarrys existed fouling things up) and even much higher in previous times, then maybe you should hold the gun till ya gets yo facts straight!
    I don't lack the facts, I may not know everything but I am certainly not completely uneducated as to the facts of this subject matter. I also know that the VAST majority of the world's scientific community says one thing about global warming and a tiny group of people who have been bought and paid for by oil companies say another.

    Let me put it another way, if 90% of the world's medical community agrees that some particular treatment can reduce or eliminate the cause of a disease and a tiny few disagree, who are you going to believe? I am going to side with the majority of the medical community rather than a tiny few Dr's who would rather let people suffer and die than try to use the treatment.

    People who deny that the majority of the scientific community is correct about global warming are like those Dr's who would rather let people suffer and die.

    But despite that I am still happy to look at and consider your links to see if I can add anything to the knowledge I have already gained on the subject of CO2.

    Oh and thanks so much for having your very first exchange with me be so polite

    ps- who did you vote for in the 2004 Presidential election?
    Last edited by T-10; 03-17-2007 at 10:14 AM.

  14. #14
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    DJ Maimed,

    Your linked info is over 10 years old. Not to mention your argument reminds me quite a bit of one that came from The Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which has been funded by Western Fuels- an oil company. That so called Center for Study also has a website called "CO2 Science" that is full of misinformation. In fact misinformation is it's entire purpose.

    I might remind you that science has come a long way since 10 years ago. Today we now know that since the 1970's it is human's who have been causing the CO2 levels to become such a problem.

    Good lord, you people who deny this are like those who still claim the world is only 5,000 years old and also flat as a pancake. Wake up, smell the coffee and start living in the real world!

    I can't help it some if of you out there want to live in la la land, it is your choice after all. However, both me and the majority of science as well as more and more of the world's national populations are learning and trying doing what we can to save the planet for everyone- including you.

    Now back to actual topic of this thread which the DJ seems to have chosen to ignore. The sun and global warming. Here is another article that includes discussion of the solar forcing arguement.
    Last edited by T-10; 03-17-2007 at 01:48 PM.

  15. #15
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    And most importantly, how do you explain the fact that Mars has been getting WARMER !
    Eric,

    I saw this article and thought you might find it of interest.

    ' the Martian year is about 2 Earth years (687 days). Currently it is late winter in Mars's northern hemisphere, so late summer in the southern hemisphere. Martian eccentricity is about 0.1 - over 5 times larger than Earth's, so the insolation (INcoming SOLar radiATION) variation over the orbit is substantial, and contributes significantly more to seasonality than on the Earth, although Mars's obliquity (the angle of its spin axis to the orbital plane) still dominates the seasons. The alignment of obliquity and eccentricity due to precession is a much stronger effect than for the Earth, leading to "great" summers and winters on time scales of tens of thousands of years (the precessional period is 170,000 years). Since Mars has no oceans and a thin atmosphere, the thermal inertia is low, and Martian climate is easily perturbed by external influences, including solar variations. However, solar irradiance is now well measured by satellite and has been declining slightly over the last few years as it moves towards a solar minimum.

    So what is causing Martian climate change now? Mars has a relatively well studied climate, going back to measurements made by Viking, and continued with the current series of orbiters, such as the Mars Global Surveyor. Complementing the measurements, NASA has a Mars General Circulation Model (GCM) based at NASA Ames. (NB. There is a good "general reader" review of modeling the Martian atmosphere by Stephen R Lewis in Astronomy and Geophysics, volume 44 issue 4. pages 6-14.)

    Globally, the mean temperature of the Martian atmosphere is particularly sensitive to the strength and duration of hemispheric dust storms, (see for example here and here). Large scale dust storms change the atmospheric opacity and convection; as always when comparing mean temperatures, the altitude at which the measurement is made matters, but to the extent it is sensible to speak of a mean temperature for Mars, the evidence is for significant cooling from the 1970's, when Viking made measurements, compared to current temperatures. However, this is essentially due to large scale dust storms that were common back then, compared to a lower level of storminess now. The mean temperature on Mars, averaged over the Martian year can change by many degrees from year to year, depending on how active large scale dust storms are'



    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    T-10 Fair enough BUT then YOU tell us HOW the Ancient Romans were growing wheat, Med. olives and wine grapes in Northern England and the Northern Rhineland 2,000 years ago. And why it couldn't be done today
    Actually grapes are still grown in the area today.

    'Hmmm.... so where did that bottle of Chapel Down in my fridge come from? (thanks Dad!) Or the winners of the 'Best Sparkling Wine' for the last two years at the International Wine and Spirit Competition? This is of course a trivial point, but it demonstrates (once again) that our contrarian friends don't even have a semblence of a desire to get it right. The lure of a talking point clearly trumps the desire for accuracy.

    In vino veritas (though not in this case).'



    Here is the link to the English wine maker they mentioned-http://www.chapeldownwines.co.uk/


    Here is yet another article that debunks the sun is the cause of global warming theory-


    Here is one that explains why the solar theory easier to believe than some other false ideas -
    Last edited by T-10; 03-17-2007 at 05:52 PM.

  16. #16
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    These are based on observations of regional change around the South Polar Cap, but seem to have been extended into a "global" change, and used by some to infer an external common mechanism for global warming on Earth and Mars (e.g. here and here). But this is incorrect reasoning and based on faulty understanding of the data.'
    This the exact OPPOSITE argument the global warming advocates put forth in an attempt to refute recent scientific observations that the Antartic ice sheet here on planet Earth is growing thicker not thinner ! Or maybe it's just my total lack of scientific understanding that different scientific principles apply depending on whether or not the polar activity supports or contradicts the human activity based global warming theory ?



    (snip)"A new radar study shows that the ice sheet feeding the Ross Ice Streams is growing. That is a dramatic change in an ice sheet covering about a third of West Antarctica and that has retreated nearly 1300 kilometres since the end of the last ice age. The big question is if the change marks the end of the retreat, or just a short-lived reversal.

    The discovery comes a few days after another team claimed that most of Antarctica is cooling down, not warming up, a conclusion that conflicts with "greenhouse" climate models."(snip)

  17. #17
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    T-10 You grow Nebbiolo or any other ITALIAN Red Wine grapes in the Northern climes that the Romans did and then tell me that !

    If the CO2 THEORY is correct; WHY wasn't the Earth getting warmer during numerous periods of increased CO2 output ? How does the CO2 THEORY work only some of the time? We've had decades of increased CO2 output and falling temperatures.

    Btw, while a minority, Global Warming skeptics with scientific credentials are GROWING in number as more and more come out to question the science behind the theory and question the methodology employed. More importantly, the overall numbers are irrelevant. The Theory is either proven or unproven and that has NOTHING to do with how many scientists accept it. Proponents of "germ theory" were certainly in the minority;the proponents of a "New Ice Age" back in 1975 were the overwhelming majority. Time was, most people believed the Earth was flat; the Sun revolved around the Earth and that Doctors didn't have to wash their hands.It takes time to revise the CW. It's generally
    called the "Cultural Lag".

    You've cited to my favorite explanation offered by GW advocates to explain away raised temps on Mars- "Martian dust storms" (as though that was a new phenomenon)and which only crop up to explain decreased Martian surface temperatures. Since Mars has NO SOURCE of CO2 or other atmospheric gases similar to ours here on Earth then according to GW THEORY, both its atmosphere and surface temperatures
    ought to be very stable but they're not. And the only possible variable is :Solar Activity. Something has to be capable of kicking up those "dust storms"and causing variants in Martian atmosphere to cause same. That's where any atmospheric storm comes from- dramatic differences in either pressure or temperature or BOTH.
    Last edited by Eric Stoner; 03-19-2007 at 11:20 AM.

  18. #18
    Veteran Member T-10's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    220
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Eric,

    I've enjoyed debate with you so I don't want you to think I am ignoring you. Please see my thread on balance.

    There has been plenty of back and forth and no one is changing anyone else's mind. Anything positive that could have come from the discussions, has already occurred. The arguments have been circular for sometime now.

    The quote I included in my balance thread explains my final position on these topics.

    Thank you for the spirited debate!

  19. #19
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    T-10 - That's the REAL problem in a nutshell. It's all well and good for us laypersons to debate the competing scientific arguments re: Global Warming.What we really need, and haven't had to date afaik, is a real debate among scientists. Instead all we get are competing sound bites- a GW critic comes on and says "it's not CO2" or a GW proponent says "our critics are all bought and paid for by oil companies."

    I'd like to see a good old-fashioned Firing Line style debate or Fred Friendly style roundtable among both GW proponents and skeptics. Even a Point- Counterpoint style printed debate as Bill Buckley and Gore Vidal did in the 60's. Let both sides air it all out. Afaik, Gore has refused to debate preferring to just do his one-sided lectures and so have every other GW proponent. Their usual explanation is along the lines of: "If we debate we grant legitimacy." Silly little me would prefer to hear from BOTH sides and make up my own mind. I don't need Gore to do it for me.

  20. #20
    Veteran Member
    Joined
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    521
    Thanks
    1
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Quote Originally Posted by Eric Stoner View Post
    ,,,Silly little me would prefer to hear from BOTH sides and make up my own mind. I don't need Gore to do it for me.
    I've pretty much reached a point where I no longer trust either the left or the right anymore. It seems to me the right would like to use religion as an excuse for them to run my life for me. And the current "religion" of the left does appear to be global warming. Which, of course, is the reason provided why the left just has to run my life for me. Im now viewing both camps with a highly raised eyebrow.

    Re: global warming...okay, I'll accept that it is caused by humans, although I'd like to see a debate, such as you've suggested. However, if my so-called "leaders" want me to follow their prescriptions as a solution to the problem, I expect no less of them than to "lead by example." Otherwise, they should never dare to call themselves my "leaders," because that is the one thing any of them will never be in my eyes.

    So, humans cause global warming? Okay, then quit having children, period! For those who already have them, great. But make sure your children or grandchildren refrain from having children themselves. When I see some of these so-called "leaders" willing to voluntarily eliminate their own bloodlines, then I'll actually believe them as to the seriousness of this problem. But not before they indicate they are willing to do this. I made a choice in my early twenties that I would never father a child, although it had more to do with my cynicism re: tax policies and cynicism re: quality of life issues in the U.S. at the time.

    While we're at it, though, requiring a license to have children, as others have suggested would probably be a good idea. And let's eliminate the separation of church and state. This, in order to impose some hefty fines on any religious organizations which continually encourage people who have no business having large families to have large families.

    Hey, if humans are the problem, we need to reduce our numbers as rapidly as possible, and as indicated above, I expect our "leaders" to set the example for the rest of us to follow.

  21. #21
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    So, humans cause global warming? Okay, then quit having children, period! For those who already have them, great. But make sure your children or grandchildren refrain from having children themselves. When I see some of these so-called "leaders" willing to voluntarily eliminate their own bloodlines, then I'll actually believe them as to the seriousness of this problem. But not before they indicate they are willing to do this. I made a choice in my early twenties that I would never father a child, although it had more to do with my cynicism re: tax policies and cynicism re: quality of life issues in the U.S. at the time.
    Requiring 'licenses' to have children is also one of the positions strongly advocated by Al Gore's 'silent partner' Maurice Strong. However, by some strange coincidence, the only way that this principle could be realistically implemented is if a 'World Government' were to emerge. Otherwise you wind up with the situation which basically exists right now in the Southwest US and in Western Europe ... the 'middle class' people who wish to sustain their present standard of living into the next generation voluntarily limit the number of children they produce, while the 'poor' and immigrants churn out children as long as it results in higher social welfare benefits (i.e. their own standard of living is unaffected by having additional children, and may actually improve via larger social welfare benefits).

    back to the subject of 'global warming' credibility gaps, finally the scientific community is offering some opinions.

  22. #22
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    Phaedrus and Melonie- the currrent situation is actually simpler and WORSE than that. Gore is the highest profile "doom & gloomer" extant yet he flies around in private jets; gets chauffered in SUV limos; lives in a house using TEN times the energy of the average American household and so do many of his fellow travelers. John Edwards is building a 25,000 sq. ft. mansion in N.C. all the while prattling on about "Two Americas". Teddy Kennedy doesn't want a "wind farm" in Nantucket. Neither does Uncle Walter Cronkite. The "do as we say; not as we do" hypocrisy of these people is disgusting.

  23. #23
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    ^^^ yes, but Al buys 'carbon credits' from his own company to supposedly offset his carbon footprint after all ... which corresponds by a promise by some Kyoto treaty exempt Chinese or Indian company to reduce the pollution levels they generate from 'absolutely horrible' to merely 'downright nasty' by an equal amount of carbon emissions. It is not known of course what percentage of the 'carbon credit' money spent by Al winds up being returned right back to him in the form of profits from his own 'carbon credit' trading company. If enacted by gov't mandate, it IS known that some percentage of future 'carbon credit' purchases by anyone falling under the gov't mandate WILL result in a percentage of profit for Al Gore and his 'silent partner' Maurice Strong, though !

  24. #24
    Banned Eric Stoner's Avatar
    Joined
    Oct 2006
    Location
    NYC
    Posts
    5,150
    Thanks
    1,261
    Thanked 1,430 Times in 888 Posts

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    MELONIE- I am shocked; SHOCKED ! do you hear me ? that you would claim that Al Gore would actually try to profit in some way from the Global Warming hysteria that he himself helps to generate. He's an Oscar Winner for Pete's sake !

    Don't you know that GORE is a Democrat and thus could not possibly have a personal motive ? That it is impossible for any Democrat to personally profit from any cause they espouse ?

    Now go to the blackboard Melonie and write the following: " Democrats Good - Republicans Bad " 100 times. And in the future, never , ever try to disparage a Democrat and Hollywood icon like Mr.Gore again. Naughty !

  25. #25
    Banned Melonie's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2002
    Location
    way south of the border
    Posts
    25,932
    Thanks
    612
    Thanked 10,563 Times in 4,646 Posts
    Blog Entries
    3
    My Mood
    Cynical

    Default Re: The Sun and Global Warming

    ^^^ Oh really ... I must have been led astray on this point by the 'star witness' of yesterday's global warming hearings, Dr. James Hansen, who saw nothing whatsoever inappropriate in accepting a $250,000 unrestricted grant from Theresa Heinz Kerry's Heinz Foundation. In case you don't remember, this is the same James Hanson who stated publicly ...

    ""It seems more like Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union than the United States," said Hansen, prompting a round of applause from the audience. He added that while NOAA officials said they maintain the policy [re press clearances] for their scientists' protection, "if you buy that one please see me at the break, because there's a bridge down the street I'd like to sell you." (snip) from

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Global warming?
    By bem401 in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 01-19-2009, 01:04 PM
  2. new concensus on global warming ?
    By Melonie in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 12-27-2007, 08:03 PM
  3. Global Warming Quiz
    By PhaedrusZ in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 06-24-2007, 03:58 PM
  4. Re: Global Warming, I want a new study!
    By PhaedrusZ in forum Member Boards
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-21-2007, 02:39 PM
  5. Global Warming
    By lildreamer316 in forum Political Poo
    Replies: 26
    Last Post: 02-08-2005, 05:11 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •