72
   

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

 
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:17 pm
@MontereyJack,
Drill, baby, drill!

Safer to drill in 3 square miles of ANWR than off shore.
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 03:19 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
382
Climate Scientist Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director the US Weather Satellite Service, past vice chairman of the U.S. National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmosphere and global warming co-author of the 2006 book: (LINK) Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1500 Years details the solar-climate link using hundreds of studies from peer reviewed literature and "shows the earth's temperatures following variations in solar intensity through centuries of sunspot records, and finds cycles of sun-linked isotopes in ice and tree rings." Singer explained on February 14, 2007, "Good evidence confirms that current warming is mostly part of a natural climate cycle, most likely driven by the sun. The available data show that the human contribution from greenhouse gases is not detectable and must be insignificant. It is a non-problem. Trying to mitigate a natural warming (or cooling) is futile and a big waste of money better spent on real societal problems."

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 30 Apr, 2010 10:10 pm
@spendius,
spendius wrote:

State of Emergency declared in Louisians. 5,000 barrels of crude a day pouring into the Gulf of Mexico and no way of stopping it. Cost not be be included in the pump price.

Makes the coal ship on the Great Barrier Reef look like a pinprick might do to a dartboard.

The sky is falling. How come mother nature has not been arrested, tried, convicted, and shot at sunrise for all the natural oil seeps?
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/what.html
pictures of natural oil seeps or asphalt shown below:
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/Resources/image169.gif
http://geomaps.wr.usgs.gov/seeps/Resources/image155.gif
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 01:24 pm
okie says:
Quote:
The sky is falling. How come mother nature has not been arrested, tried, convicted, and shot at sunrise for all the natural oil seeps?


Maybe it's because monther nature isn't threatening to wipe out a large portion of the Gulf's marshlands, which, among other things, protect against coastal erosion, as well as much of its bird, fish, and shellfish and crustacean population, while BP is.
okie
 
  1  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 02:39 pm
@MontereyJack,
I am sure if treehuggers had been around at the time of the LaBrea Tar Pits problem, they would have made the case of natural tar pits created by mother nature had a hand in the extinction of things like the Sabre Tooth Tiger, etc. That sounds like a pretty large crime, MJ.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  0  
Reply Sat 1 May, 2010 11:45 pm
Projecting again, okie? Nope, Ma's tar pits had nothing to do with it.
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2010 11:48 pm
How many politicians really believe in Global Warming ? Believe enough to put their jobs on the line ...We will find out when they try to get hundreds of billions of dollars during hard economic times to "cure the planets fever".
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 11:21 am
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide.png
CO2 Trend 1958-2008

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

http://www.biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_English.jpg

Quote:

http://biocab.org/Solar_Irradiance_is_Actually_Increasing.html
CORRELATION BETWEEN SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND GLOBAL TEMPERATURE
By Nasif Nahle
Published on April 27, 2008.Updated: 20 December 2009.
(Additional editing of this English text by TS)

Cal. Year AD | Int. of SI (W/m^2) | ∆ Temp. (K) | Amplitude SI (W/m^2) | Ann. Coeff. of Correlation

1997 | 1365.75 | 0.04617 | 0.05 | 1
1998 | 1366.11 | 0.51317 | 0.51 | 1
1999 | 1366.39 | 0.04050 | 0.04 | -1
2000 | 1366.67 | 0.03458 | 2.20 | -1
2001 | 1366.40 | 0.19925 | 1.90 | -1
2002 | 1366.37 | 0.31383 | 1.87 | -1
2003 | 1366.07 | 0.27183 | 1.57 | 1
2004 | 1365.91 | 0.19417 | 1.41 | 1
2005 | 1365.81 | 0.32825 | 1.31 | -1
2006 | 1365.72 | 0.27592 | 1.22 | 1
2007 | 1365.66 | 0.26967 | 1.16 | 1


http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Jan-Dec Global Mean Temperature over Land & Ocean
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE MEAN ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F).


http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif

http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif
Average Annual Global Temperature 1850-2009
During the 100 year period, 1910 to 2010,
THE AVERAGE ANNUAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASED LESS THAN 1°C (1.8°F)
.
0 Replies
 
MontereyJack
 
  2  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 01:06 pm
AND THE MORE CO2 WE PUMP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, THE FASTER IT'S GOING TO INCREASE IN THE FUTURE
MontereyJack
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 01:06 pm
big and bold enough for you to read, ican?
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 02:43 pm
@MontereyJack,
Increasing CO2 is good for plants and animals. It increases plant growth. By increasing plant growth it increases the food supply for animals. Increasing plant growth and the food supply for non-humans, increases the food supply for humans.

CO2 in the atmosphere decreases due to precipitation unless more CO2 is continually released into the atmosphere.

Human increases in the CO2 in the atmosphere do not cause global warming.
Advocate
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 03:46 pm
Rightist Virginia attorney-general is using his postion to reverse all that he thinks is liberal. His latest venture is to basically subpoena the U. of Virginia for 10 years of climate-change data.

http://img.slate.com/id/2250591
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:00 pm
@MontereyJack,
Quote:
AND THE MORE CO2 WE PUMP INTO THE ATMOSPHERE, THE FASTER IT'S GOING TO INCREASE IN THE FUTURE
Must be important, to make you yell and all. Pity it is not true. We have now about 10% of the CO2 we have had previously. Man-made currently makes up 5% of the CO2 in the atmosphere, if we take the worst case. How much of any increase in that can be handled by a self correcting system ?
0 Replies
 
Ionus
 
  0  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2010 07:02 pm
@Advocate,
Quote:
Rightist Virginia attorney-general is using his postion to reverse all that he thinks is liberal. His latest venture is to basically subpoena the U. of Virginia for 10 years of climate-change data.
Damn that makes me feel good !! You rock Virginia !!!
0 Replies
 
ican711nm
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 05:50 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
383
Chemist James Hammond, a councilor for the American Chemical Society's San Gorgonio section, refuted man-made climate fears in 2007. "Data published during the past few years show that all other life on Earth contributes 1,000 times as much greenhouse gases as do people and all their activities," Hammond said at an American Chemical Society meeting in Redlands, California, according to a November 16, 2007 article. The article noted that Hammond explained that "all humans and human activity, from driving cars to raising cattle, produce just 14 percent of all carbon dioxide emissions." The article also explained that Hammond noted a single cow "emits about 1 1/3 tons of carbon dioxide a year, while a human on average emits 1 ton - though it depends on a person's size and diet." Hammond continued, "Reasonable sources of extra CO2 would be all other life on Earth, including plants, animals and insects. As the Earth warmed, more food would grow, so people and animal populations could grow, thereby increasing greenhouse gas production. Dead and rotting plants, animals and people contribute carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, ammonia, sulfurous gases and others that add to greenhouse gases." Hammond concluded, "CO2 is only one part of the problem. We're not looking at the whole picture." (LINK)

0 Replies
 
okie
 
  0  
Reply Thu 20 May, 2010 08:04 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
By increasing plant growth it increases the food supply for animals.

But that increases animals and more methane emitted by animals. We are all doomed, ican, no way around it. The U.N. is our only hope to come up with a solution to this pending disaster, them along with Barrack Obama. And Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi I am sure have infinite wisdom to add to the consensus building necessary along with the U.N. to formulate a solution. One of the first things needing done is for us to give up our outdated and old fashioned concept of nationhood, because only a world united together can combat the very serious problems threatening our planet with extinction along with all life thereon.
ican711nm
 
  -1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 02:13 pm
@okie,
Here's the solution.

We must fasten gas bags to every animal's anus including human anuses.

Whenever a bag is full give it to the Odem (i.e., Obamademocrats). They can decide what to do with its contents.

Yes, it is true that more than fart gas will get into those bags. Odem have proven they can handle that too.


………………~~~~~~~~!??!??! ~~~~~~
………………~~~~~~~~
(O|O) ~~~~
………………..~~~~.~~
( ~o~ ) ~~~~
________________>~<_______________________
okie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 21 May, 2010 09:34 pm
@ican711nm,
ican711nm wrote:
They can decide what to do with its contents.

That will probably require the appointment of a czar and a special committee to figure out how many billions it will cost to drill holes into the earth for the purpose of sequestering the dangerous gases. But the bright side of the problem is that probably thousands of green jobs can be created, not only to manufacture the bags, but to oversee the program, transport all the stuff, and manage the sequestering projects. Obviously, locals will not take kindly to having it done in their backyard, so townhall meetings by the thousands will be required, but only after the Department of Energy or some other department does all the studies, along with environmental impact statementes for each site considered. I can predict what could happen, the best sites may end up in Utah, Nevada, or New Mexico, but like the spent nuclear fuel problem, there will always be enough save the spotted desert mouse groups to head off the actual implementation of the sequestering program. So we will probably all have to end up with enduring the stench of the gases that will probably ultimately escape before they are taken care of properly, but we won't know the difference, because we are already suffering from the stench being emitted by Washington anyway.
parados
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 07:23 am
@okie,
Gosh okie and ican, why do you think we need new technology or to drill holes? Liberals have been dealing with your **** for years. Why do you think we have to deal with it differently now?
ican711nm
 
  1  
Reply Sat 22 May, 2010 03:34 pm
@parados,
Shits are not competent to deal with ****.

All they can do is produce **** for non-shits to effectively deal with.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.13 seconds on 02/09/2025 at 06:12:31