Is Gobal Cooling a Continuing Threat?

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Yes i see they address the issue of the heat sinks. Will have to look into it more before commenting further.

The rebuttal of the scientfic concensus is dated 9th July 2010 from your link H3ad. The report i have linked to was released a few days ago and has 1000 esteemed scientists and former members of the IPCC giving their considered scientific opinion.

It is damning in the extreme.

But of course the mass-media have done their old trick of ignoring pertinant and valuable info in the hope it will just go away...

 

[Madrus Rose]

i read a book on this shit, from a famous author i wanna say micheal chricton, anyone kno what im talking about?

A point from that was how rich people who are tryin to raise money, or awareness for global warming fly around in private planes, and they overlook that one trip in the plane burns more fuel than most people would in a year.

Think from about 1953 up thru the 1965 cold war era we had one Arclight ( B52 bomber squadron) in the air every day , 24hrs a day....they burn alot , no mega amounts of fuel . Commercial jetliners now have streamlined their emissions well enough , but think of all that constant travel as well.


got to run , tea time

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

I believe your graphs (if factually correct) demonstrate the power of $ in funding the alarmism.

The people shovelling money into the the scam expect results!

Like i said. Give it a year or 5 and we shall see reality setting in and the likes of John Cook will go into retreat.

 

[HempKat]

I hear ya' man! I'm trying to type, but my furnace stopped working and it's difficult to hit the correct keys here with gloves on!

Funny how the gloves don't interefere when you're being sarcastic.

 

[trichrider]

bet you think that the most 'evidence' creates the facts as you state opinions aren't fact...then your opinion is no more fact than mine, regardless of the 'evidence' proffered.

you're on a rant and will not be derailed even though it is a useless avenue.

cannot accept a government agencys' account of anything anymore, though if you insist i will try to educate myself further. just as they lied about "fossil fuels" in their quest for their holy grail(money)...they are lying about their data, you have already judged them as the final word. sooooooo..

believe what the heck you want, just don't judge others beliefs because the agencies mentioned above have inundated you with bogus stats.

you're in the dark.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

funny when people with their head in the sand accuse me of being in the dark.


I used to think like you, until I learned too much to allow the delusion to persist.



2+2=4. (in base 10 math)
Opinions can't change that.
It is a fact, supported by the evidence ( ** + ** = ****)

Anyone who cares to bother can verify it.

Were I claiming that 2+2=5
Then anyone who cared to test it could easily refute it.


Same thing with the AGW evidence... Anyone is free to take their own measurements and refute the 'bogus stats', so how come none of the denier spokesmen have? Perhaps the verifiable, irrefutable nature of the evidence prevents them? How come so many lines of evidence which are independent of each other all point at the same thing, and no evidence indicates something contrary?

 

[DiiZZii3]

Think from about 1953 up thru the 1965 cold war era we had one Arclight ( B52 bomber squadron) in the air every day , 24hrs a day....they burn alot , no mega amounts of fuel . Commercial jetliners now have streamlined their emissions well enough , but think of all that constant travel as well.


got to run , tea time

Wait What?

 

[Ben Tokin]

I think that some of the members here are not simply skeptics, but they have a more profound understanding of people, politics and science. It doesn't take much to believe in something that is professionally presented to the public. The msm uses that weakness to constantly sway public opinion. A good example is the cannabis legalization issue. Most people who have tried it know the effects it has. Most studies have proven the benefits it provides, but the media continues to mislead the public due to pressure from special interests. It's the same with AGW.

 

[trichrider]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GLGKTZHzsZk

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I think you would have better luck getting people onboard with what you're saying if you put it more that Man is involved in this current Global Warming period but not solely responsible. The science I've seen tends to suggest that Man has accelerated it which would explain things like why we're now seeing things happen alot sooner then was previously predicted by the older science.

I agree that man is not solely responsible.

Man is only responsible for the additional portion of CO2 which actually came from burning fossil fuels, and for the portion of the CO2 that stayed in the atmosphere because of deforestation.


Thing is... Even though man is only partially responsible... adding more energy retention capability to a system which is already retaining extra energy (warming) will only make the warming more and faster.

The climate is obviously sensitive to energy balance fluctuations, as evidenced by manifold climate change events in our long history. If we had not increased CO2 concentrations by 25%, would we have an energy imbalance right now?

Is man's activity the sole cause? No... but it is the only cause we can do much about.


I guess part of "cause" depends on your perspective of "cause".

In my mind, if a scale is in balance, and a mote of dust lands on one side, and as a result the scale tips... then the mote of dust caused the scale to tip, regardless of whatever weight might have already been on each side.

 

[SilverSurfer_OG]

Are you now comparing mans c02 output to a mote of dust?

Thats more like it

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Are you now comparing mans c02 output to a mote of dust?

Thats more like it

To a mote of dust capable of tipping the very sensitive climate scales... Absolutely.

not a perfect analogy... but close enough for the point that was being made.

 

[HempKat]

I agree that man is not solely responsible.

Man is only responsible for the additional portion of CO2 which actually came from burning fossil fuels, and for the portion of the CO2 that stayed in the atmosphere because of deforestation.


Thing is... Even though man is only partially responsible... adding more energy retention capability to a system which is already retaining extra energy (warming) will only make the warming more and faster.

The climate is obviously sensitive to energy balance fluctuations, as evidenced by manifold climate change events in our long history. If we had not increased CO2 concentrations by 25%, would we have an energy imbalance right now?

Is man's activity the sole cause? No... but it is the only cause we can do much about.


I guess part of "cause" depends on your perspective of "cause".

In my mind, if a scale is in balance, and a mote of dust lands on one side, and as a result the scale tips... then the mote of dust caused the scale to tip, regardless of whatever weight might have already been on each side.

That's my point though man is not responsible for Global Warming in and of itself but he is responsible for accelerating it. There are scientists that have devoted their entire lives to studying polar ice shelves. At the begining of their studies the science had projected a rate of loss into the future. As they aged and the future became the present they discovered the polar ice shelves were melting at a much faster rate then the predicitons, about 20 to 30 years faster.

I have no science to prove it but it is my belief that this 20-30 year of accelerated loss is directly attributable to man's addition of CO2. I also don't believe it's all reversable because I think a big part of the miscalculation has to do with the rate of population growth. The world took from the beginning of mankind until the 1960's to accumulate 3 billion people alive on the planet at any given point in time. It only took another 50 years to more then double that number.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

That's my point though man is not responsible for Global Warming in and of itself but he is responsible for accelerating it. There are scientists that have devoted their entire lives to studying polar ice shelves. At the begining of their studies the science had projected a rate of loss into the future. As they aged and the future became the present they discovered the polar ice shelves were melting at a much faster rate then the predicitons, about 20 to 30 years faster.

I have no science to prove it but it is my belief that this 20-30 year of accelerated loss is directly attributable to man's addition of CO2. I also don't believe it's all reversable because I think a big part of the miscalculation has to do with the rate of population growth. The world took from the beginning of mankind until the 1960's to accumulate 3 billion people alive on the planet at any given point in time. It only took another 50 years to more then double that number.

and we'll have that number trebled soon.



are you saying the scales were already tipping and the mote is just making them tip faster?
Or that the mote grew faster than projected, and is responsible for the tipping and acceleration?

 

[HempKat]

and we'll have that number trebled soon.

Oh yeah, and in less then 50 years since it's growing exponentially.

No I'm saying the scale operates in ways beyond our full understanding and as such goes in and out of balance on our own and that man's contributions exacerbate and accelerate something that in given time will still have devastating effects on mankind, regardless of what we do. In other words do we see the end of the world sooner or later? We see historic evidence of major climate change well before man ever influenced the planet and we've matched those periods to earth's orbits and rotations and wobbles closely enough to where it seems likely that at some point the cycle will repeat which is also bourne out in the prehistoric evidence. So it's fair to conclude that no matter what we do we'll see major climate change in the form of a major ice age at some point in time. Near as I can tell we are no closer to surviving that then the creatures that proceeded us in the previous major ice ages.

I guess another way to say it though is yes, the scale is already out of balance and the mote only makes it more so. I just don't like that analogy because out of balance implies something out of the ordinary that can be corrected when in reality the things making it seem out of balance are in fact all part of it's balance. A fair arguement can be made that life can outstrip the ability of the planet's resources to replenish themselves naturally. Maybe the cycles are all part of natures way of cleaning house every so often?

 

[trichrider]

ocean covers 70% of planet, largest carbon sink, forests are but a small % of carbon sequestration.
ocean also the temperature modulator for this rock...
that mote of dust is the particulate that precipatation adheres to in the atmosphere, has been for millenia, will continue to be so.
some peoples are so hung up on current criteria they fail to account the obvious.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

Oh yeah, and in less then 50 years since it's growing exponentially.

yeah... I imagine 25.




As far as the oceans go... Cold oceans can hold a lot of CO2... warm oceans, not so much.

There is nothing you mentioned which I fail to account for.

The mote of dust was a rough metaphor.

Additionally CO2 makes the ocean acidic, which corals really hate.

 

[trichrider]

ok, let me just sooth your worried brow.
the planet will do as it will and recover from any imagined harm we may or may not have contributed to.
your thread and your thread only from here on in,

enjoy yourself, it's unlikely others are.

 

[Grat3fulh3ad]

I need no sooth. thanks anyhow...
I don't worry... what is is.

 

[In~Plain~Site]

ok, let me just sooth your worried brow.
the planet will do as it will and recover from any imagined harm we may or may not have contributed to.
your thread and your thread only from here on in,

enjoy yourself, it's unlikely others are.

Not so fast

Having had the 'GW Summit' just end with 'only modest plans presented', can only mean one of two things:

A) The scientific 'evidence' wasn't stirring enough to move them to action

Or

B) Politics are involved


Which one was it?