Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

cjhsa wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

We don't have to go back to caves, but we do have to start making changes in our enviromental policy.

T
K
O

Uh, no, we don't. The last great sea change here was the 1973 creation of the EPA which has almost single handedly moved all manufacturing offshore to places with less environmental laws. If you keep this up, they will just build factories in space where you have even less jurisdiction.

Funny that you meantion space. I love th earth but I outright hate outerspace. I'd love nothing more than to pollute it.

You could say I'm very Pro-space pollution.

Twisted Evil

But seriously, describe to be how global enviromental law is a bad thing.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

So what you're saying is that ou are rebutting against arguments which were not made here on A2K. I'm glad were clear on that.

I'm not sure what make-believe leaders you are referring to, nor what movement you are referring to.

Al Gore for one.

Quote:

Sounds to me like you are saying that ANYONE for addressing AGW or CC is a ""whacko" or an "extremist."

Since nobody here is making the arguments, it's pure straw.

We don't have to go back to caves, but we do have to start making changes in our enviromental policy.

T
K
O

The point that I am making here, which seems to go over the heads of every GW advocate here or anywhere is this: If you agree with Al Gore, you claim that global warming is man caused, and that it is caused largely by greenhouse gases, namely CO2, and that if we do not reduce CO2, there is a tipping point that will cause catastrophic damage to the world, so therefore we need to enact changes, such as Kyoto, which will solve the problem, or begin to solve the problem.

To analyze all the assumptions in that scenario, first of all, we don't really know how much climate is changing exactly, we don't know the cause, we don't know if we are to blame for the rise in CO2, we don't know if CO2 is causing any warming that is part of climate change, and we don't know that even if the climate does warm as much as is predicted by the pundits that it will be anywhere near catastrophic or if it may actually be beneficial. And secondly, even if global warmers are correct, including the change will be catastrophic, the proposed solutions are not going to make any material difference in CO2 in a short enough time to bring about any solution that would amount to a hill of beans. In short, if people like Gore actually believed the stuff he is saying, he would propose that we all go back to the caves. He doesn't propose that, so people like me have no choice to conclude that the guy is a nut and has lost his marbles.

Should I sugarcoat the analysis a little, diest, would that make you feel better?

0 Replies

I don't care what you put sugar on, just provide me quotes form Mr.s Gore that...

1) We are the same as rats.
2) We need to go back to living in caves.

You assert that someone is saying this. Who?

BTW, you are not very well educated on what WE know.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

I don't care what you put sugar on, just provide me quotes form Mr.s Gore that...

1) We are the same as rats.
2) We need to go back to living in caves.

You assert that someone is saying this. Who?

BTW, you are not very well educated on what WE know.

T
K
O

I never quoted Gore to say that rats are as important as people.

PETA is not the only radical left organization, and you could argue they aren't an environmental organization, but according to this site, they do have 700,000 members, and this organization does claim rats are as important as people. The general mood of environmental groups further the notion that animals have rights, and are to be protected almost at all costs, so I would say PETA fits into that general mindset of extreme environmentalism. They are not the only group that does this to some extent or another.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDUxOWY3NGMzNWIyNzdmMDFmYmZiNDg3MGNhNTgyNzI=

Again, you are pretty dense in regard to the point, you don't get it. I will try a couple analogies. Gore's message is akin to saying houses are killing us, but he doesn't suggest we quit living in houses and go back to the caves. He simply advocates something akin to cutting the rate of growth of houses, but according to his numbers per my analogy, staying at the same number of houses will cause a tipping point to kill alot of us. My conclusion is that if he actually believed the first part of the scenario, he would advocate quit living in houses, but he doesn't.

In other words, this takes logical thinking, such as if A + B = C, then if A is added to B, proposing D as the solution when D is perhaps 1% or less of C, the person doing the math is not very logical. Can you grasp these analogies?

0 Replies

THERE ARE RECENTLY REPORTED ERROR CORRECTIONS IN THE PREVIOUSLY REPORTED GLOBAL WARMING HISTORY

The following graph is for the period 1880 - 2007, and provides the combination land & ocean, annual global temperature anomalies.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2007/ann/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif

Also, the relative reference period has been changed from 1961-1990 to 1901-2000.

Quote:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2007/ann/global.html
The 1901-2000 average combined land and ocean annual temperature is 13.9°C (56.9°F) the annually averaged land temperature for the same period is 8.5°C (47.3°F), and the long-term annually averaged sea surface temperature is 16.1°C (60.9°F).

Note that the average combined land and ocean annual temperature now is 1.1C (2.1F) lower than the 15C (59F) worldwide standard for aviation. Surprised

0 Replies

The revised 1880 thru 2007 Annual Global (land and ocean combined) Anomalies (degrees C) are listed below.

Quote:

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/annual.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
Year...anomaly
1880 -0.1465
1881 -0.0895
1882 -0.1181
1883 -0.1606
1884 -0.2055
1885 -0.1719
1886 -0.1455
1887 -0.2146
1888 -0.1423
1889 -0.1011
1890 -0.2467
1891 -0.1991
1892 -0.2630
1893 -0.2877
1894 -0.2481
1895 -0.1747
1896 -0.0576
1897 -0.0924
1898 -0.1997
1899 -0.0966
1900 -0.0281
1901 -0.0974
1902 -0.1735
1903 -0.2929
1904 -0.3284
1905 -0.2159
1906 -0.1798
1907 -0.3467
1908 -0.3768
1909 -0.3808 < most negative
1910 -0.3656
1911 -0.3621
1912 -0.3037
1913 -0.2861
1914 -0.1133
1915 -0.0558
1916 -0.2710
1917 -0.3264
1918 -0.2098
1919 -0.2070
1920 -0.1674
1921 -0.1225
1922 -0.2142
1923 -0.1904
1924 -0.1848
1925 -0.1143
1926 -0.0213
1927 -0.0993
1928 -0.0979
1929 -0.2245
1930 -0.0250
1931 -0.0035 < least nrgative
1932 -0.0269
1933 -0.1605
1934 -0.0243
1935 -0.0495
1936 -0.0178
1937 0.0827
1938 0.0979
1939 0.0748
1940 0.1163
1941 0.1380
1942 0.1242
1943 0.1178
1944 0.2134
1945 0.0667
1946 -0.0289
1947 -0.0304
1948 -0.0414
1949 -0.0681
1950 -0.1555
1951 -0.0118
1952 0.0339
1953 0.1128
1954 -0.1115
1955 -0.1314
1956 -0.1878
1957 0.0490
1958 0.0994
1959 0.0530
1960 0.0048 < least positive
1961 0.0745
1962 0.0979
1963 0.1272
1964 -0.1399
1965 -0.0732
1966 -0.0298
1967 -0.0142
1968 -0.0213
1969 0.0786
1970 0.0324
1971 -0.0643
1972 0.0178
1973 0.1429
1974 -0.1047
1975 -0.0319
1976 -0.1107 < at the beginning of a rapid warming
1977 0.1282
1978 0.0503
1979 0.1406
1980 0.1887
1981 0.2293
1982 0.1133
1983 0.2716
1984 0.0798
1985 0.0625
1986 0.1496
1987 0.2870
1988 0.2888
1989 0.2087
1990 0.3700
1991 0.3241
1992 0.1894
1993 0.2227
1994 0.2815
1995 0.3981
1996 0.2586
1997 0.4615
1998 0.5764
1999 0.3947
2000 0.3629
2001 0.4933
2002 0.5572
2003 0.5564
2004 0.5333
2005 0.6045 < most positive
2006 0.5393 < a decrease
2007 0.5494 < a smaller increase

The percentage increase in average global temperature from 1909 to 2005, as measured on the Kelvin temperature scale:

Year--Celsius-----Kelvin
-----(-273.160)----000.000 < absolute zero or no suns at all

Year--Celsius-----Kelvin-----Celsius
1909 = -0.3808 +273.16 +13.9 = -0.3808 + 287.06 = 286.6792K
2005 = +0.6045 +273.16 +13.9 = +0.6045 + 287.06 = 287.6645K
Average temperature Increase from 1909 to 2005 = +0.9853K
Percentage increase = 100% x 0.9853/287.06 = +0.3432%.

2005 = +0.6045
1976 = -0.1107
Difference = 0.7152K in 29 years, or 0.02466K per year

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I never quoted Gore to say that rats are as important as people.

No you haven't. You've claimed the ones leading the charge are, and when asked to name them, you chose Mr. Gore, not me. You haven't because you can't. It was a dumb thing for you to post. How embarrassing for you.

Here comes my favorite part...

okie wrote:

PETA is not the only radical left organization, and you could argue they aren't an environmental organization...

Nice try. PETA has nothing to do with anything, and they are not the ones leading the charge on AGW or CC.

Please give me a climatologist that equates rats to humans, or STFU about it.

okie wrote:

Again, you are pretty dense in regard to the point, you don't get it. I will try a couple analogies.

Can't wait... Rolling Eyes

I must seem dense to someone made of hot air.

okie wrote:

Gore's message is akin to saying houses are killing us, but he doesn't suggest we quit living in houses and go back to the caves. ... My conclusion is that if he actually believed the first part of the scenario, he would advocate quit living in houses, but he doesn't.

But he didn't say to live in caves? That settles it.
You post BS.

okie wrote:

In other words, this takes logical thinking, such as if A + B = C, then if A is added to B, proposing D as the solution when D is perhaps 1% or less of C, the person doing the math is not very logical. Can you grasp these analogies?

Try this.

The democratic party or "the left" is composed of several interests, and trying to argue against one of those interests by attacking a second interest is a invalid arguement. Get a clue.

Animal Rights != Climate Change;

They are two separate issues.
K
O

0 Replies

To repeat, if all the global warmers scenario is true, including catastrophic consequences caused by CO2, then how come you don't propose real solutions that will actually reduce CO2 worldwide? You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk, and one of your biggest blowhards on global warming, Al Gore, is one of the worst offenders. Such explains why the whole global warming agenda is truly politics, not science. If it was science, the proposed actions would match the problem as it has been described by you guys.

Here is what is happening, and the truth is the trend is up and you guys have no answers. Now if you believe we will all die if we don't change the outlook, then you need to get serious.

http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/ieo/emissions.html

As it is, you guys are all hype and no substance.

0 Replies

I've never asked people to be perfect, only that they improve. As for government policy, I ask for a greater standard.

Your comprehension of this topic is pretty weak. Weak like a rat's comprehension of why we need to live in caves. Laughing

The problem is corporate intrest groups creating red tape for the scientists. You're right, this is about politics. Right-wing politics attacking science.

I think the right-wingers have used the ticking time bomb senario so many times to pass their agenda that they forgot that not every senario is a ticking bomb. CC is not about hysteria, it's about planning ahead, and taking action now. Future generations will still ned to use this planet, and considering the adverse effect climate / weather patterns has on a city / country, it seems very reasonable that we investigate our long term energy plan.

This begins with acknowledging the problem.
K
O

0 Replies

Then I take it the problem is not urgent, we just need to acknowledge it? Thats not the message given by Gore's prize winning work. Now which is it?

0 Replies

Looks like Central England temps in 2007 shape up to be one of the coolest since this graph began recording in 1978. December is 4.9, and January, 2008 could be cooler, so visualize where that will be on the graph. It looks to me like most Januarys are cooler than Decembers on the graph.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_mon.html

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Then I take it the problem is not urgent, we just need to acknowledge it? Thats not the message given by Gore's prize winning work. Now which is it?

I never said that JUST ackowledging it is enough, I have only said that is the beginning.

As for urgent. The circumstances are what should dictate our actions, not the urgency. As for urgency, the research shows that anthropogenic factors drive the timescale of the climate changes.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Looks like Central England temps in 2007 shape up to be one of the coolest since this graph began recording in 1978. December is 4.9, and January, 2008 could be cooler, so visualize where that will be on the graph. It looks to me like most Januarys are cooler than Decembers on the graph.

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/HadCET_mon.html

Wow! The coolest! You mean their climate is acting in a unprecidented way?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
Then I take it the problem is not urgent, we just need to acknowledge it? Thats not the message given by Gore's prize winning work. Now which is it?

I never said that JUST ackowledging it is enough, I have only said that is the beginning.

As for urgent. The circumstances are what should dictate our actions, not the urgency. As for urgency, the research shows that anthropogenic factors drive the timescale of the climate changes.

T
K
O

I haven't followed your every comment. Do you agree with Gore? He believes in something called the tipping point. How about you?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Looks like Central England temps in 2007 shape up to be one of the coolest since this graph began recording in 1978.

Central England Temperature

Quote:

The Central England Temperature (CET) record was originally published by Professor Gordon Manley in 1953 and subsequently extended and updated in 1974, following many decades of painstaking work. The monthly mean surface air temperatures, for the Midlands region of England, are given (in degrees Celsius) from the year 1659 to the present.

This record represents the longest accurate series of monthly temperature observations in existence. It is an extremely valuable dataset for meteorologists and climate scientists. It is monthly from 1659, and a daily version has been produced from 1772. The monthly means from November 1722 onwards are given to a precision of 0.1°C. The earliest years of the series, from 1659 to October 1722 inclusive, for the most part only have monthly means given to the nearest degree or half a degree, though there is a small 'window' of 0.1 degree precision from 1699 to 1706 inclusive. This reflects the number, accuracy, reliability and geographical spread of the temperature records that were available for the years in question

0 Replies

Looks like the last years are missing in your link, Walter.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
Then I take it the problem is not urgent, we just need to acknowledge it? Thats not the message given by Gore's prize winning work. Now which is it?

I never said that JUST ackowledging it is enough, I have only said that is the beginning.

As for urgent. The circumstances are what should dictate our actions, not the urgency. As for urgency, the research shows that anthropogenic factors drive the timescale of the climate changes.

T
K
O

I haven't followed your every comment. Do you agree with Gore? He believes in something called the tipping point. How about you?

Hard to say. I don't nessisarily think that a tipping point will mean a momentum shift, but it may represent it self in a significant shift in climate / weather paterns.

From a thermodynamics standpoint, a tipping point would represent a point where the energy balance would reach a point where it could no longer reach equilibrium without a large responce. That large responce would be what I referred to as a significant shift in climate / weather paterns.

I believe some of the ideas on "tipping points" is taken out of context.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Looks like the last years are missing in your link, Walter.

Sorry - here we go

Source

okie wrote:

... Central England temps in 2007 shape up to be one of the coolest since this graph began recording in 1978 ....

quote="Net Office"]The monthly series begins in 1659, and is the longest available instrumental record of temperature in the world. ....[/quote]

MONTHLY MEAN CENTRAL ENGLAND TEMPERATURE

0 Replies

T
K

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Hard to say. I don't nessisarily think that a tipping point will mean a momentum shift, but it may represent it self in a significant shift in climate / weather paterns.

From a thermodynamics standpoint, a tipping point would represent a point where the energy balance would reach a point where it could no longer reach equilibrium without a large responce. That large responce would be what I referred to as a significant shift in climate / weather paterns.

I believe some of the ideas on "tipping points" is taken out of context.

T
K
O

You seem to be waffling quite a bit. I think it is clear that the global warming crowd, and I use Al Gore as an example because he is a leading spokesman, has been very alarmist about all of this. The general message is we have to do something quick or something extremely catastrophic is likely to happen, yet they offer no solutions that are consistent with their alarmist message. I pass it off as all bogus hype and no substance. All talk no walk.

My whole point about going back to the caves is that if 2 + 2 = disaster, then why doesn't your crowd propose something other than 2 + 2? The global warming crowd is not logical, they offer no practical solutions even if their hypothesis is correct, and there are several holes in their hypothesis to start with. I look at all of this as nothing more than comic relief from the everyday grind that most people experience every day.

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know