The Sun affects our weather??? Oh Noooooo!

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I suggest anyone interested in truly studying the effects of the sun on Earth's climate, google Milankovitch Cycles to understand what effects our position in the solar system has on our climate.
Once you understand 1st and 2nd order Milankovitch cycles, take a look at the data retreived from the Vostock ice cores in Antartica. The ice cores summarize temperature and CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOK-DOMECIceCoreCompare_Stewart2009.pdf
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/VOSTOKICECoreObservations_Stewart2009.pdf

As you can see, the Earth's temperature rises and falls in relation to our position in space. Every 100,000 years or so, we see a rapid spike in temperatures followed by a prolonged period of ice ages. We're currently approaching the peak temps. The next ice age is coming. Are you prepared?

In summary, the Earth's temperature rises and falls based on the Milankovitch cycle.
You don't like it, find another planet.

Here's Burt Rutan's take on the global warming science fraud.
Warning, it's a 6.6 mb pdf file. Not friendly for dial up and 3g connections.
http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/EngrCritique.AGW-Science.v4.3.pdf

Here's four videos of Dr. Bob Carter, an Austrailian geologist, debunking the climate change scare using [gasp] the scientific method. How dare he use science and not scare tactics. He must hate polar bears.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vN06JSi-SW8&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iCXDISLXTaY&feature=channel
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpQQGFZHSno&feature=channel

 

[Hash Zeppelin]

Bingo!
Of course, the gaja crowd and wealth redistributors won't want to here the truth.

YOU DON'T KNOW PHYSICS RETARD!

I would say the retarded blind, anti science, religious crowd wouldn't like what I have to say.

True conservatives believe in conserving resources whether it is monetary, or natural. I am a true Conservative. I also believe the U.S. government should be shrank down to about 1/10th it's size.

However I also Do Believe thousands of scientist when they present decades of gathered evidence, that shows humans are fucking up the planet with multiple types of pollution, and yes they are helping artificially heat the Globe, greatly contributing to climate change.

There is one thing you cant argue with. When you look at Arial satellite photos of the poles you can see that the summer melt is more and more every year. The Globe heat up and there is more water in the atmosphere and more heat which causes more transfer of energy which causes Extreme weather patterns. Doesnt take a fucking genius to figure it out, but it takes a fucking idiot to deny what is clearly observed.

Like George Carlin said. The Earth ain't goin' no where. We are.

WAKE THE FUCK UP! BE OBSERVANT!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... True conservatives believe in conserving resources whether it is monetary, or natural.

I used to agree with relatively the same. I've since come to the opinion that conservatism and conservationism are unrelated. That's no suggestion the two together are ironic. Teddy Roosevelt was an environmental conservationist [and] political conservative.

Generally speaking, conservatives shun the changes that conservationists seek.

These days, the only thing ideologically conservative is no compromise.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

My BS in geophysics and MS in environmental science says differenty, Hash.
Nice try. Why dont you look at the data I presented and get back with me?

You present aerial satellite data as your evidence. We have what..30-40 years of that data.
Try looking at the big picture. No person with training in the scientific method would rely on 40 years of data when there's millions of years of data to suggest the opposite.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

How many of those millions of years could 6.5 billion humans exist?

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

Probably 10-20%, considering the need for aerable land to feed the masses and CO2 concentration necessary for plant reproduction.
Global cooling is a greater threat to man than global warming. Once we go back into an ice age, like we have done thousands of times in the past, there wont be enough suitable land to feed the people.
Warming should be embraced. Yeah, it's fucking hot here today and I have a 5:32 tee time which is going to suck, but it beats golfing in the snow.
Cooling = death for the planet

Edit: I'll revise that estimate to less than 10% since oxygen concentrations on earth were too low to support life for the first 2.5 billion years. It was the rise of the stromatolites in the oceans that allowed oxygen concentration to rise and permit the Cambrian explosion.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...Once we go back into an ice age...

I believe it's the period prior to your predictions that climatologists suggest poses the most immanent danger. We can't go on forever but rampant industrialization can snuff the human butt faster than nature alone.

 

[Sgt.Stedenko]

I'm not suggesting that man has no effect on the planet, but to suggest that rising CO2 concentrations will cause global castrophe is absurd.
Venus has rampant global warming because it's atmosphere is almost 95% CO2. Here on Earth...0.04% Man made CO2...less than 10% of natural CO2 or 0.004%
You really think reducing and taxing man-made CO2 will save the planet?
Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases when adjusted for heat retention characteristics. Natural CO2 is just over 3.5% and man made CO2 is less than 0.12%.
CO2 has been scapegoated because it's the easiest tax scam to perpetuate.
The politicians and talking heads cant pull that stunt with water vapor, because they know they would have their asses handed to them by the populace.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I'm not suggesting that man has no effect on the planet, but to suggest that rising CO2 concentrations will cause global castrophe is absurd.
Venus has rampant global warming because it's atmosphere is almost 95% CO2. Here on Earth...0.04% Man made CO2...less than 10% of natural CO2 or 0.004%

How much CO2 are you suggesting we could live with? Wouldn't you have to have some kind of historic comparison to venture anything other than a guess?

You really think reducing and taxing man-made CO2 will save the planet?

Save is relative to your definition.

Water vapor makes up 95% of all greenhouse gases when adjusted for heat retention characteristics. Natural CO2 is just over 3.5% and man made CO2 is less than 0.12%.

Water vapor is released from the atmosphere in the form of rain. CO2, methane etc aren't.

CO2 has been scapegoated because it's the easiest tax scam to perpetuate.
The politicians and talking heads cant pull that stunt with water vapor, because they know they would have their asses handed to them by the populace.

I think you're oversimplifying your argument.

Of all the dangerous, industrial substances known to man, how many have been curtailed by the folks that profit from them? History is replete with examples of industry saying, "Don't worry, it won't harm you."

Doesn't mean I believe the sky is falling every time a climatologist says it will. Wasn't too long ago we we're warned of an imminent ice-age. But science has a way of correcting their assertions to the point we reference "down to a science."

So when you ask do I really believe we're in danger, the absolute last opinion I'd consider is the same folks that told us nicotine wasn't addictive when their own studies proved it was.

Saying Al Gore wants to get rich ignores the fact we've traded caps for decades.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...You really think reducing and taxing man-made CO2 will save the planet?

Not necessarily, at least in your context. However little it may be. Do you gather we've reduced the hole in our ozone through CFC reductions? How about the fact we traded ozone caps?

Caps are a regulation thing. The idea of trades was originally introduced by conservatives as a way to finance large-scale environmental improvement. Suggesting it's just scapegoat or wealth-transfer ignores this and merely politicizes the debate.

 

[SpasticGramps]

The idea of trades was originally introduced by conservatives as a way to finance large-scale environmental improvement.

You mean Neo-Conservatives (ie Progressive Right) right? I think the distinction is important.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

Conservatives are market-oriented. I can no more opine their true ideologies than the next guy.

And if it provides a solution to work toward a major investment we can't function overnight, does further politicization work toward (or away from) the debate?

 

[longearedfriend]

man it's so hot and humid here

then winter comes and that's something else

what a life

 

[SpasticGramps]

Conservatives are market-oriented. I can no more opine their true ideologies than the next guy.

And if it provides a solution to work toward a major investment we can't function overnight, does further politicization work toward (or away from) the debate?

I'd have to say that everyone is market oriented. Baring the recluse who lives in cave and lives solely off the land. The difference in opinion lies in how we interact with the market. Markets as in the real economy, not the stock market ponzi scam. Speaking of scams.

Trading CO2 credits initial draft concept came out of the Enron trading unit. Don't know if I really trust those guys? The relationship between Enron and the government struck me as quite cozy. Dare I say fascist like, thus anti- free market. They pushed the CO2 regulation angle hard because they will reap billions fleecing the citizens and further ruining the economy. The poor will get poorer as usual.

I can understand the desire to want to move to a sustainable future, but trusting the same assholes who keep robbing us with another BS paper scam is not the way do go about it IMO.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

I just think it's a little awkward discussing science from a political perspective.

 

[SpasticGramps]

I really see it as more of a business perspective I guess. Politicians are paid to dance IMO.

 

[devilgoob]

People are paid to write convincing speeches for politicians. The people who are paid to write those speeches own have six children, a nice car and a gated house.

We all are part of the economic machine and full de-industrialization would have to occur for our world to not fail and self-annhilate. I believe either we will do the right thing or god will create an ocean on top of us then release it. Everything comes down to people being unreliable-ass animals with vocabulary in which to share information to help people kill other people so we can be safe. Tell me how much of you I am really seeing, when in reality society would reject you because you only act for them.

Society pretty much rejects a lot of things. The reject though, also what they see in themselves and this is why the world will end. I am not a 2012 person. I am a "we are but a single conscious spawned in time and space out of nothing and universal law rules, DUST TO DUST.

what happens with stars ETC. stuff dies, things end. We humans HAD the chance, but we have failed.

 

[grapeman]

well my friend physics dictates that their is cause and effect,wich means since humans are here there is a effect of our presence on everything we contact. (directly or indirectly)
what is our effect on using fossil fules ? not messurable ? isignifigant ? it is what we read ? well just take a messure of whatever culprit you or others suspect and then multiply it by the number of humans.
then you will have a mesure of effect, minus the necessities we need to live.
if the nessecities are less than the culprit then we can say destuction is apon us.
so necessities are X culprits are Y and the result is Z. so X -Y =Z you just have to make sure the values are correct and verifiable through experiments and observation.
also clearify what it is you want to accomplish,is global warming real ? or is your question is it man made? or is it a natural cycle? give somthing for people to debat specificly. politics aside.

Why are you asking me questions for posting up a factual article showing that the weather and climate is affected by cosmic rays, but ALL the doom and gloom IPCC et. al. studies don't even factor these facts into their analysis?

Why you asking me instead of questioning the veracity of the studies that ask society to transfer $$ trillions $$ in wealth. Why aren't you asking or questioning their lack of science?

Or why don't you ask why the University of AZ puts an official weather station in the middle of a parking lot then uses the skewed temp numbers to claim and extrapolate that the globe must be warming?

Or why don't you ask why they did the same at Sea-Tac International Airport, then use the skewed numbers to claim the globe is warming?

Why the fuck you asking me instead of asking questions of these "make believe" scientists who will do anything for government grants? I point out these facts and you ask my intentions.

The government reports bullshit and you ask nothing.

You want something to debate???

Start with the garbage purporting to be science that claims they totally understand that man is causing global warming. Start with that bullshit science then we'll work our way up to the corrupt politicians pushing this circus on mankind. I posted the fact about cosmic rays effecting weather yet it is not in anyway accounted for by the IPCC or anyone else. Here are 2 more links about bullshit science below.

http://www.ihatethemedia.com/climate-station-in-paved-parking-lot

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/07/17/see-temps-rise-at-sea-tac/

 

[grapeman]

I just think it's a little awkward discussing science from a political perspective.

Really??

Come on Really????


When scientists themselves are obviously skewing results to satisfy political agendas you still can't see the forest through the trees.

Maybe there are no trees left you your neck of the woods due to........ wait for it......... wait for it......... man made global warming. LOL.

And you thought the science of global warming isn't political. It's been political since it's inception. Only true believers can't see what's right in front of their face.

 

[Wiggs Dannyboy]

Trading CO2 credits initial draft concept came out of the Enron trading unit.

This can't be true. I clearly remember seeing a show on PBS, something like Nova, back in the early to mid 80's about trading/selling carbon units to combat the problem.

It was a show that was a docudrama, not a documentary, that was dramatizing a point in time where the global climate started running amok and this was the only response that would deliver the desired result. The show was obviously prescient, wish I could remember the name of it. I think it may have been British.

It wasn't Enron that came up that idea.