Old man, I may be younger than you are but that gives you no grounds for the arrogance and presumption you exude. You may discover this toddler has fangs in the context of finding your arse in shreds.
Originally posted by Edufer
The graphs usually present surface temperatures from 1860 to present days, relative to the 1951-1980 average, as stated by the Cornell Univ. webpage. This is arbitrary, because it assumes that the 1951-1980 average is "normal", so any deviation from it looks catastrophic. If you take as "normal" the average temperatures of the <b>Climatic Optimum</B> of 1100 AD, then the trends disappear and everything looks fine.
It doesn't matter what you calibrate as your 0 point. The trend merely gets translated up or down on the graph. The curve stays the same.
Exponential.
This kind of graphs convince people who likes to see great swings in the curves, but do not read the whole story.
Take another look, and tell me the graph is not exponential.
"Divergence of Temperture Trends in Lower Troposphere in IPCC Global Warming Forecast"</A> (by S.B. Robinson, S.A. Baliunas, W. Soon and Z.W. Robinson, 1998.
I don't suppose the surface temperatures actually mean anything, then. It's not like the glaciers are located on the surface, after all.
Another point never mentioned by the media is that CO2 increase <b>lags behind temperature increase by some few hundred years</B>, so it is not CO2 what increases temperature but increased temperatures produce the conditions for more CO2 emissions from biomass.
Excuse me??? How the heck is warmer temperature supposed to
increase CO2?? Warmer oceans absorb more CO2. Warmer climates encourage greater vegetation which sequesters CO2 from the atmosphere. Biomass
scrubs carbon from the atmosphere. Burning previously scrubbed carbon in the form of coal, oil, natural gas or biomass releases it back into the atmosphere as CO2. Did you flunk biology, Mr. teacher?
Take another look at the second graph below, and help me find that lag of "some few hundred years":
Granted, CO2 doesn't always correlate perfectly with global temperature (as seen from the first graph above), which means other factors are also at play. However, the correlation is still there and is very strong.
Are you aware that CO2 is a
greenhouse gas? That's not propaganda; it's mere physics. CO2 efficiently absorbs infra-red (heat) emissions from the ground, thereby making it more difficult for heat to escape into space.
A visit to the Cornel University page "A Global Warming Primer" shows that 5339 visitors read the page since 1996, and average of 74.1 visitors a month, or 2 visitors a day. It does not speak well of the scientific confidence and trustability obtained by the page. As a comparison, the webpage of the <b>Argentine Foundation for a Scientific Ecology, <A HREF=http://mitosyfraudes.8k.com/ENGLISH.html>"Ecology: Myths and Frauds"</B></A> (Spanish and English versions), gets an average of 277 unique visitors a day (not bad for a $10 a month website in Freeservers...) The industry and oil lobbies don't pay us enough as to have a $25 website...
ROFLMAO
By your standard, Sciforums is a far more reputable source of information than either of the above. So you better trust what I say, granpa.
FYI, most scientists read journals instead of websites. If you read those journals, you'd not be arguing such a braindead cause. Also FYI, Cornell University is a globally recognized and highly acclaimed academic institution.
And in case you're imagining that "the industry and oil lobbies" pay greens, you're in need of medical attention. As a matter of fact, industry and oil lobbies spend millions and billions on "research" to deflate unfavorable facts in the public's eye. Just like the tobacco industry used to do versus anti-smoking campaigns.
BTW, while Spain is having a record cool spring and summer, South America is going through the worst blizzards and cold (freezing) temperatures in recent history (Argentina, Chile, Bolivia, Peru). In Bolivia and Peru it has been labeled as a "National Tragedy" because the death toll it took in human and animal lives.
More local temperature swings. You must not comprehend the notions of "global", "average", and "trend".
As you say, we must see average temperatures (global or local) and here comes handy this temperature graph from Newkirk, Oklahoma, from 1930, to 1990, a time lapse <B>wide enough to set a trend</B>. It looks that there was not warming in Oklahoma until 1990.
Newkirk, Oklahoma = global. Ok, point conceded. You got me there.
But let's take a look at Oklahoma as a state. Here's official NOAA data for you:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/cag3/hr_display3.pl
[edit: link doesn't work as it's a dynamically generated page. To reproduce it, follow these instructions:
<ol>
<li>go to http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/cag3/OK.html</li>
<li>select Period -> Annual (scroll down the list)</li>
<li>click the "Submit" button</li>
</ol>
Generally, it's a rather nifty website for all your weather-related questions within confines of US.]
As you can see, mean temperature in that state has gone up 1 degree Fahrenheit in the last century. Not that big, but magnitude does vary by location. Global averages take a few more points in addition to Newkirk, Oklahoma or even Oklahoma in its entirety.
<B>Green leaders</B> who profit from the activities of the WWF and daughter (and subordinate organizations) as : Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, World Resources Institute, Sierra Club, Nature Conservancy, Survival International, Earth First!, Sea Shepherd, Lynx, Rainforest Action Network, Worldwatch Institute, National Resources Defense Council, Environmental Defense Fund, etc.
Profit from the activities? We'll see...
1) <b>Prince Philip</b> of Greece and Denmark, Baron Greenwich, Earl of Merioneth, Duke of Edinburgh, royal consort to Queen Elizabeth II, <b>and owner of the WWF</b>;
These people are rich to begin with. Show me how they actually profit from the green movement.
2) his cousin and former president of the WWF, <b>Prince Bernhard von Lippe</B> of the Netherlands (BTW, former member of the <b>NSDAP</B> (Nazi Party) with affiliation card #2583009, date: May, 1st, 1933, former <B>SS member</B>, worked in IG Farbenindustrie --makers of the <b>Zyklon-B</B> gas--), was caught receiving a $1.1 million bribe from Lockheed Corp. in 1976.
Either you're implying that Zyklon-B is connected to the green movement, or you're implying that Lockheed Corp. wants to curb CO2 emissions. You must be out of your mind.
3) All members of the <b>1001 Club</b>, founded by Prince Bernhard in 1971, amongst them: <B>Conrad Black</B>, Chairman and CEO of the Hollinger Corp., a media conglomerate, with newspapers in England, Australia, USA, Canada, Israel, etc. ---<B>Peter Cadbury</B>, Chairman, Preston Publications Ltd., chairman of George Cadbury Trust, family's chocolate interests dominates the economies of West Africa. ---<b>Alexander King</b>, Co-founder of the Club of Rome; co author of <B>Limits to Growth</B>; ---<B>Maurice Strong</B>, vice president of the WWF until 1973, first executive director of the U.N. Environmental Program, responsible of the Earth Summit Rio 92, currently chairman of Ontario Hydro; ---<B>Jonkheer John H. Loudon</B>, Succesor of Bernhard in the WWF presidency in 1977, former CEO of the Royal Dutch Shell Group; chairman of Shell Oil Co. until 1976; ---<B>Gustavo Cisneros</B>, Venezuelan billionaire, charged with bank frauds in 1994 in Venezuela; ran BIOMA, a leading Venezuelan "environmentalist group" shut down after being caught faking dolphin killings for a campaign against the tuna fishing industry; ---<B>Fred >Meuser</B>, the bagman for the $1.1 million bribe to Prince Bernhard from Lockheed Corp. in 1976; ---<B>Tibor Rosenbaum</B>, first Mossad logistic chief. His bank, the <b>Banque du Crédit International</B> was identified by <b>LIFE</B> magazine in 1967 as a money laundry for <b>Meyer Lansky</B> (hope you know who this guy was); ---<B>Robert Vesco</B>, a capomaffia still a fugitive, the American Connection to the Medellín Cartel, initially sponsored by the Swiss branch of the Rothschild family to take over the Lansky-affiliated <b>Investors Overseas Service</B> (IOS). Last known address: Havana, Cuba. Smoking excellent cigars with Fidel...
How do
any of these people actually
profit from the green movement? You name many unsavoury individuals, and you don't think they would support good causes at their own expense to try and whitewash their more nefarious activities? You have to be a political moron not to see the grandstanding for what it is. If it is indeed working for them, then indeed they are profiting. But not in a fiscal sense. And at any rate, what bearing does their opportunism have on the real environmental issues?
I could give you a list of many thousand names, but you asked for <b>just ONE</B>. To the names provided of people who profit from their "environmental activities" we must add a huge list of "scientists" working by sucking carloads of money from government funds to make "environmental research". The Chicken of the Golden Eggs!.
Oh yes, those "scientists" are really getting fat off that government money.
Not like we would actually need or want a good climate model.
More names that profit from "environmental scaremongering": ---<B>Paul Ehrlich</B> (and wife), ---<B>Lester Brown</B>, Worldwatch Institute, ---<B>Stephen Schneider</B>, "climatologist" that in the 70s predicted an imminent global <B>cooling</B>, but found that the "ice age" was not profitable
You have a rather cynical view of climate modeling. Perversely cynical. But please, do explain how Paul Ehrlich is profiting from CO2 emissions control. And maybe he even is, if he's a smart businessman. The retards moan and whine, the adept adapt.
; ---<B>F. Sherwood Rowland</B>, inventor of the gigantic farse of the Ozone Hole;
If we did not curb CFC emissions, the "gigantic farse" would be beaming ultraviolet all over the planet even as we speak. The holes over the arctic and antarctic are just now beginning to stabilize and shrink. Maybe you like sunburns and skin cancers. I, personally, prefer to have them not.
And my hope is not vague: it is based on scientific proofs and undeniable evidences.
Proofs?? Undeniable evidences?? Where are they? Physics says CO2 is a greenhouse gas. You have proof against that? Atmospheric CO2 concentrations have been dramatically boosted in the last couple of centuries and continue to increase exponentially! You have proof against that? Man is unbalancing the natural carbon budget by releasing previously sequestered carbon into the atmosphere in massive amounts growing exponentially. You have proof against that? CO2 persists in the atmosphere for a long time. You have proof against that? Venus is 900 degrees Fahrenheit at the surface due to a runaway greenhouse effect. You have proof against that? How about "undeniable evidences"?
So we don't currently observe the large effect that was predicted. Does that mean there is no effect? Does that mean that whatever is buffering against the effect will continue to buffer equally well in the future? The planet may be getting greener for now, but how much greener will it get before the flora is saturated? Before annual fires begin to release as much CO2 back into the atmosphere as is sequestered by additional greenery every year? Before rotting biomass begins to release enough methane (a much more potent greenhouse gas than CO2) to progressively make things worse?
Until we have an impeccable model of climate indicating that CO2 explosion will not lead to climate catastrophe and detailing the exact reasons why not, the only prudent course of action is that of caution and prevention. This is not alarmism, it is not inventing new problems out of thin air. There is good reason to suspect that increasing concentrations of CO2 and other greenhouse gases could unbalance the climate. Unless and until we have a compelling reason to strongly believe otherwise, caution is the only prudent option.
Some of my links usually refer people to the articles and scientific studies (not models) of Dr. Patrick Michaels, a distinguished atmospheric scientist,
He likes to complain a lot about how we don't have a perfect model for climate. Whoopty doo. Perhaps we should wait a few more decades to develop a perfect model, before we actually act on the underlying problem? Throw caution to the wind, burn it all!
Michaels is more than just a scientist. He has a clear libertarian (anti-regulation, anti-establishment, pro-freemarket) agenda. As are pretty much all of the scientists you've mentioned in addition to him.
You should read what Dr. Lindzen told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee on May, 2nd, 2001, by going to the link provided above, or go to the source in the US Senate:
http://www.senate.gov/~epw/lin_0502.htm .
No, fair enough, really. However, he never explained (even though he promised to) why he thinks the "precautionary principle" is a bad idea. IMHO, it's the only sane idea on the table. The best alternative consists of crossing fingers and hoping for the best. He did mention, in passing, that assuming an unstable Earth would indicate "bad design" -- the guy is apparently a creationist, to boot. No wonder he believes everything's going to work out; the Almighty will do something to save us.
An interesting thing I find is that all the anti-regulation exponents admit that warming is indeed occurring in the arctic, predominantly with respect to nights and winters. Perhaps they are not aware, but cold temperatures at night and during winter contribute to growth or maintenance of glaciers and permafrost. Warm it up, and you've got global flooding on one hand and endless arctic swamps on the other (with all the attendent mosquitoes -- gotta love'em.) Melting of ice and permafrost in the arctic would flush extra freshwater into the arctic ocean, creating a lightweight top layer and threatening to inhibit or even shut down the Gulf Stream. But never mind that, we'll all take a collective gamble I guess.
Something I find amusing. The libertarian proponents as a rule deny CO2-driven radiative forcing, decry alleged economic costs and then, in the same breath, denounce the Kyoto treaty for not doing enough. By golly, they have it all figured out.
I just don't understand the "freemarket" hysteria over emission control. "Hidden taxes", they say. But new jobs, new industries, they neglect to mention. "Let the market evolve the clean technologies", they say. Yet without federal regulations we still wouldn't have catalytic converters on our cars. If you think that's a good thing, take a trip to Moskow and take a deep breath. We'd still be driving on leaded gazoline. We'd still be driving without crumple zones, seat belts, air bags or reinforced cages. Without federal research and infrastructure development, we still wouldn't have access to space. Free market my foot. Without federal money, we wouldn't have our highway system. The "American" affair with the automobile would never have happened; I'm sure the freemarket zealots of Detroit would have loved that scenario. Without taxpayer support, we wouldn't have our airports and airlines. But at least the taxpayers would've kept a little more of their money.
Newsflash: free markets do not and cannot exist, are not a panacea, and they are not the optimum anyway. Sanity ought to be the first priority.
Invariably, gory visions of horrendous alternatives are floated in opposition to fossil fuel mitigation. Nuclear plants and solar/wind generation are apparently the only solutions to the problem. Whatever happened to tidal and wave generators, hydroelectric, geothermal, biomass, solar concentrators, temperature differential and other already developed, viable commercial alternatives? Not to mention gee-whiz schemes with potentially huge payoffs like fusion or space-based power plants? Whatever happened to all the taxpayer subsidies for the nuclear and fossil fuel industries? We're about to spend billions of taxpayer dollars on the ridiculous Yacca Mountain project after having already spent billions on related research as well as cleanup of toxic waste dumps. We've spent billions subsidizing coal mines and gas/oil pipelines, cleaning up their leaks and disasters, fighting in the Middle East for domination and making an enemy of the Arab world, and I'm sure you could go on with respect to the Americas, Africa, Asia and the various islands. Is that free market, or is it a load of bullshit?
Green policies, while sometimes misguided, are the sane alternative. The bad policies are eventually revealed for what they are and scrubbed. The good ones we keep and blissfully forget about, in our zeal toward bashing the greens.
