74
   

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

 
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 06:10 am
@Adanac,
I said what I wasn't satisfied with. You are free to create your own strawman but don't expect me to accept it.

Quote:
A reduction in CO cause people to wear gas masks ?
What on earth are you on about ?
It is YOUR argument Adanac. You claimed science predicted we would have to wear gas masks. I pointed out that CO was reduced because of increased government regulation and science would NOT have claimed a reduction in CO would require gas masks. Your quote left out parts of the original.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:37 am
@Walter Hinteler,
Eh, so this is a thread for valid environmentalism by now.

(I learned from Sowell that Pope Benedict lectured at university and wrote about Karl Marx.)
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 10:43 am
@ican711nm,
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
310
Legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil, described as "an inventor whose work in artificial intelligence has dazzled technological sophisticates for four decades" according to May 2, 2007 CNN article, dismissed former Vice President Al Gore's climate views. "These slides that Gore puts up are ludicrous, they don't account for anything like the technological progress we're going to experience," Kurzweil said, according to the CNN article. The article also noted Kurzweil "invented the flatbed scanner, the first true electric piano, and large-vocabulary speech-recognition software; he's launched ten companies and sold five, and has written five books; he has a BS in computer science from MIT and 13 honorary doctorates." (LINK) In a June 19, 2006 interview with the Washington Post, Kurzweil elaborated more on technology. "None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution," he said. "I don't see any disasters occurring in the next 10 years from this. However, I AM concerned about other environment issues. There are other reasons to want to move quickly away from fossil fuels including environmental pollution at every step and the geopolitical instability it causes," he concluded. (LINK)

rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Tue 18 Aug, 2009 11:38 am
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
310
Legendary inventor Ray Kurzweil...

"None of the global warming discussions mention the word ‘nanotechnology. Yet nanotechnology will eliminate the need for fossil fuels within 20 years. If we captured 1% of 1% of the sunlight (1 part in 10,000) we could meet 100% of our energy needs without ANY fossil fuels. We can't do that today because the solar panels are too heavy, expensive, and inefficient. But there are new nanoengineered designs that are much more effective. Within five to six years, this technology will make a significant contribution," he said.

I guess I should start shoveling my investment portfolio dollars over into NanoSolar Cells. Apparently within 5 or 6 years the need for fossil fuels will be significantly reduced and then eliminated in 20 years.

I sure hope Ray's right. But I don't trust his crystal ball any more than most others.
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Aug, 2009 12:54 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
I guess ... Apparently within 5 or 6 years the need for fossil fuels will be significantly reduced and then eliminated in 20 years. ... But I don't trust his crystal ball any more than most others.

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
311
Atmospheric scientist Dr. Augie Auer of the New Zealand Climate Science Coalition, former professor at the University of Wyoming and former MetService chief meteorologist, dismissed climate fears: "People should not allow themselves to be deluded by the computer-modeled speculation with which they are bombarded in the news media these days. Measurements show mankind's contribution to the greenhouse effect through carbon dioxide emissions has been somewhere between miniscule to indiscernible," said Professor Auer in a April 5, 2007 article. "In any case, records tell us that increases in the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere have followed, not led, natural cyclical increases in Earth's temperature," Prof. Auer added. (LINK) Auer took to task doomsday computer predictions. "Most of these climate predictions or models, they are about a half a step ahead of PlayStation 3 (video game). They're really not justified in what they are saying. Many of the assumptions going into [the models] are simply not right," Auer said in May 2007 in a New Zealand radio interview shortly before his death in June 10, 2007. (LINK) Auer also declared man-made climate fears unfounded. "We're all going to survive this," Auer said in a May 19, 2007 article in the Timaru Herald. "If we didn't have the greenhouse effect the planet would be at minus 18 deg C but because we do have the greenhouse effect it is plus 15 deg C, all the time," he explained. "We couldn't do it (change the climate) even if we wanted to because water vapour dominates," he concluded. (LINK) [In Memoriam: Auer died on June 10, 2007]

0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 10:43 am
http://i29.tinypic.com/2zsupzd.jpg
>AP report online<
Adanac
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 01:32 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Global Warmists' Sly Polar Disorder

Quote:
If there’s one thing climate alarmists have become quite good at, it’s retrofitting both their computer models and the climate phenomena those models predict whenever they fail to do so correctly. And whether projecting increases in temperature, sea levels or atmospheric carbon dioxide that means often.

Fortunately for realists, since the Northwest Passage hysteria of 2007, Arctic ice has made a rapid comeback, as you can see from this DMI Centre for Ocean and Ice graph, constructed from Ocean and Sea Ice, Satellite Application Facility data. In fact, the 2009 Arctic ice extent appears to be well on track to exceed the previous four yea


http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/04/global_warmists_sly_polar_diso.html<br />
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 Aug, 2009 02:30 pm
@Adanac,
Quote:

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/04/arctic_ice_thicker_than_expect.html
April 29, 2009
Arctic Ice Thicker than Expected; Catlin Trek on reduced rations
Richard Henry Lee

The science blog, Watts Up With That, has a story about a German team that flew over the Arctic and found ice thicker than expected. This comes at a time when the Catlin Arctic Survey team, which is trekking to the North Pole, is on reduced rations because a resupply flight has been postponed due to a blizzard.

The German team found ice up to four meters thick when they were expecting the ice to be about 2 meters thick.

The CAS expediton was designed to show that ice thickness is decreasing, but they have not released any ice thickness data yet.

Meanwhile the CAS team members are hoarding their food by reducing their food intake to only 1000 Calories per day. This is much less than 5500 to 6000 Calories per day they had been eating according to their web page.

The CAS expedition seems more like a stunt every day. If the resupply flight does not make it to the team soon, a rescue flight may be necessary. The leader of the team, Pen Hadow, had been rescued on the arctic ice in 2003 during another expedition.
Adanac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 01:30 am
@ican711nm,
Ah ican711nm , don't you see .....
This thickening of ice is Global Warming cunningly disguised !!!
Well this is the tortured logic the doomsters will use.
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 01:51 am
@ican711nm,
Well that was done by the Alfred-Wegener-Institut für Polar- und Meeresforschung (AWI) in Bremerhaven.

However, someone must have had difficulties translating their report (though it was published in English as well).

Infos can be found at the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) website.

106,000 km² ice melted this July versus 94,000 km² at the same period last year.
Adanac
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 01:44 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter, I was wondering how the North Greenland Eemian Ice Drilling (NEEM) determined that 106,000 km² ice melted this July versus 94,000 km² at the same period last year from drilling a hole in the ice ? Did I miss something ?
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 02:13 pm
@Adanac,
They deliver data for the Sea Ice Index, since they are in close collaboration with the US Office of Polar Programs, National Science Foundation and the NSF contractor in Greenland, CPS Polar Field Services.

Hoping that this info was some help.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 Aug, 2009 10:42 pm
Don't know where all the denialiust blogs get their data, but a llot of it seems to be pure wishful thinkiing. And ican's cite was, of course, in April, around the end of Arctic winter. A lot has happened since then, all of it in line with the consensus on global warnming.

As the climate models predicted, warming in the Arctic has been stronger than elsewhere, and this year's Arctic summer melt (which still has a month or so togo), along with what is probably a developing el Nino (remember what I keep telling you about them, ican?) will prlobably be either a new record or a near record.

Further, the winter rebound in ice formation over the last several years has been new ice, which is not as durable as multiyear ice and melts quicker in the summer, which means each year there 's less and less ice.

The world ain't in the cooling trend you keep talking about, ican. Pure wishful thinking.
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-general/20090809/CN.Canada.Ice.Retreats/
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Sun 23 Aug, 2009 06:05 pm
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
As of December 20, 2007, more than 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries have voiced significant objections to major aspects of the alleged UN IPCC "consensus" on man-made global warming.

Quote:

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport#report
312
Geologist Dr. Norman J. Page a retired independent geological consultant, rejected climate fears. "It is clear that periodic changes in the suns activity, its size, irradiance and magnetism strongly affect climate and are likely the main driver of climate change," Page explained in to EPW on May 25, 2007. "The words ‘United States' are almost invariably followed by ‘the world's biggest polluter.' This is not so. The U.S. emits a large amount of CO2 but land use patterns in the United States also absorb large amounts of CO2. The important figure for any country or region is not the total emitted but the net amount after absorption is subtracted from emissions. The data are not robust, but a paper published in Science magazine in 1998 concludes that on balance North America takes up more CO2 than it emits to the tune of about 100 million tons per year while Eurasia actually puts into the atmosphere on balance about 3.5 billion tons CO2. The United States cleans up its own mess while Europe is a massive net polluter," Page wrote. "Compared to most of earth's history the earth is now impoverished in CO2. At various times in the last 550 million years CO2 levels have often been four or five times current levels and for some eras 10 to 15 times greater than today. Water vapor is by far the most abundant greenhouse gas while CO2 comprises less than 3% of earth's greenhouse gases," Page explained.

0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 01:00 am
@squinney,
I love hysterics under the heading of science. Here is how to have a conspiracy on Global Warming:
1. Measure the temperature through ice samples laid down during the last ice age. Declare that you have found it to be warmer now than then.
2. Measure the ice sheets left over from the last ice age and find that they are melting. Dont tell anyone that the earth rarely has mountain glaciers. Dont tell them the Artic Ice has melted at least 7 times since this general cooling period began. Save the Polar Bear...
3. Declare if it gets hotter that it is due to Global Warming.
4. Declare if it gets colder that it is due to Global Warming.
5. Blame small fluctuations in weather on Global Warming (especially flooding which is due to increased land usage). Ignore that our earths climate has been far more stable in the last 10,000 years then at any other time.
6. Hide dissenters within the scientific community. Put their names on reports when they strongly disagree with its conclusions.
7. Tell people we are all going to die unless they believe.
8. Tell people who disagree they are fools.
9. Bring the greenies on board. They are already a powerful lobby group and will help without thinking...just mention the word extinction. Save the white Polar Bear, it is so pretty... never mind the black child.
10. Dont mention that we will most probably go back into an Ice age within several thousand years, and this is due to the continental positions amid ocean currents and cycles of the sun. Or it could be before the end of this century, we dont know.
11. Ignore the huge amounts of green house gases that have been released in the past because people may ask why didnt we die then when the planet was warmer anyway.
12. Focus on carbon dioxide, the least provable of greenhouse gases and ignore the most obvious, water vapour which is given off by trees. Dont even mention the middle of the road gases based on sulphur, and chloride and methane because they are provable as producing global cooling, as they do in most volcanic events.
13. Ignore earths volcanic past. One mega volcano can produce many times more greenhouse gases than man has so far.
14. Encourage people to design cars that give off water vapour instead of carbons, because people like water (ref 12 above).
15. Buy scientists. If someone wants to study "pidgeon droppings in cities", ignore them until they tack on "and their impact on Global Warming".

Why do all this and more ? Because the planet is under strain and lying was the only way to get the political leverage to do it. People want to save species, and this is plainly a ridiculous waste of resource. Species are an adaptation to a temporary environment. The planet changes. Our lives are too short and fear of our own death frightens us into strange positions.

If we truly want to save the planet, I suggest we do something about the microscopic life in the oceans, which has far more impact on Global temperature then man ever will. Limit out footprint by building up. Cut our population by half...one good virus should do it. Dont feed starving people until we are prepared to help them and not just ease our conscience. Stop poisoning the oceans. Stop caring about ugly repulsive species like the whale. Get holiday snaps with a microbe instead.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 07:09 am
@Ionus,
I love the list you think is science that disproves Global Warming.

If you want to denigrate the lack of science you shouldn't use that list.

For instance -
7. - No one has said we all die unless we believe. That is a made up argument
11. Which specific time period are you talking about? There have not been huge amounts of greenhouse gases released when humans lived. The earth had more CO2 millions of years before humans came on the scene but not after they arrived.
12 - water vapor, sulphur, chloride and methane are not ignored. They are included in the science. Claiming they aren't included sounds rather hysterical on your part.
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter2.pdf

13. One MEGA volcano can't produce many times more greenhouse gases than man has. Your statement is complete nonsense.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php
In 2000 man put out 150,338 kts of SO2
http://earthtrends.wri.org/searchable_db/index.php?step=countries&ccID[]=0&allcountries=checkbox&theme=3&variable_ID=812&action=select_years
The most SO2 ever put out by a single volcano since 1979 is about 15,000 kts.
Your mega volcano would have to be 100 times larger than the largest eruption in the last several hundred years to even come close to matching man's output for the last 10 years of SO2.

Volcanoes can't begin to match the output of CO2 by man.
Quote:
Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually. ...Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.

http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/2007/07_02_15.html

The only one being hysterical seems to be the person that wrote your list Ionus. It raises questions about your ability to think rationally for posting it here.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 11:33 am
@parados,
It has been ?proven? that the less than one degree celsius increase in the average annual global temperature over the last 100 years is caused by increases in CO2, H2O, and SI in the atmosphere.

The percentage of this less than one degree temperature increase caused by each of these increases are as follows:
CO2 = X%;
H2O = Y%;
SI = Z%.

X% = ?
Y% = ?
Z% = ?

~~~~ !????! ~~~~
~~~~ (O|O) ~~~~
.~~~~ ( O ) ~~~~.

What!
Do we know?

parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 02:00 pm
@ican711nm,
Quote:
It has been ?proven?

Are you talking to me?

Because you seem to be using words I didn't in my post.
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 04:50 pm
@parados,
Yes, Parados I was talking to you. But I was not quoting you, not paraphrasing you, not even inferring from what you posted.

What I was doing was giving my perception of the current status of the argument about what is causing global warming.

I think we do not know what is causing global warming
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 27 Aug, 2009 05:06 pm
@ican711nm,
Have you read the IPCC report? Or are you talking out of ignorance?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 04/29/2025 at 09:41:25