Facts, Not Fiction

 
Page 11 of 154 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1532
  1. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    beyond help
    Posts
    12,733
    "A beautiful theory killed by an ugly fact."
    by Thomas Henry Huxley
    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lost at C (-minus)
    Posts
    26,679
    Quote Originally Posted by Pego
    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070201/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_12
    from that report:

    That means they agree that there is a 90 percent chance that global warming is caused by humans.
    which caused a spike on my BS Meter (despite being a GlobWarm-believer myself). That's a pretty risk-free assessment (unprovable, one way or the other) and it seems in their own best interests to say that as a group, to impower themselves with an authority that " people better listen to us!" Sorry, not impressed (not that I need to be, to see that we may WELL have a problem we'd better address RIGHT NOW).
    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by lonewolf
    There is indeed an inexorable global warming now in it 15th millenium, give or take a few millenium. Man did not cause it.
    Folks, this isn’t that difficult to understand. While cyclical periods of warming and cooling have been going on since pretty much the beginning of time there is very strong evidence that this particular warming cycle is going to be much more intense than any know previous warming cycles (going back about 400,000 years). The key here is the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, which closely coorespond to temperature levels. The historical levels are measured by the atmospheric CO2 levels observed in the Antarctic ice cap. The levels of atmospheric CO2 have risen dramatically over the past 100 or so years, far past any previous levels of any recorded global warming phase, primarily because of our propensity to burn fossil fuels and to cut down forests around the world.

    And any information about this year’s weather, last year’s weather or next year’s weather is all a smoke screen for those folks on either side of the discussion (like figo’s long, long note). The whole global climate change thing happens and is evidenced over a much longer period that what is going on in the weather this year.

    I nice little CO2 chart from the liberal wingnuts over at the EPA. The peaks and valleys over the years correspond to the Milankovitch cycles figo referenced earlier.

    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
     
    bham

    my long long article was intended to mock and fart in the general direction of those global warmer fadists.... stupid consensus of opinion diatribe spewers... who smell of elderberries..

    i do believe but with very modest confidence that indeed co2 introduced by man is warming the planet, but there is also a natural cooling effect setting in (as predicted by the most recent models based on ice core data). so the conclusion remains that co2 (on its own) is a good thing..... burning fossil fuels in light of the above would be to error on the side of safety.

    climatology is in it's infancy. the effects of the sun, earth rotation, position in the milky way, oceanic volcanoes, comets, apollo objects, ocean currents, position of land masses, etc, etc,
    the basics of the above are just now being studied in earnest with basic principles uncovered.
    predictive models will be mostly unreliable until such time as the basics are understood. at that point, it will be very very challenging to understand the interrelationship between the various variables.
    so there's a lot to learn and study, many nobel price winning discoveries to be made... lots of fun.

    remember recent climate models from our global expert warming crowd p predicted another huge hurricane season...
    their sophisticated techniques were essentially spun to come up with what they strongly expected to happen, another big hurricane season.
    after the big non-event - virtually no hurricanes at all, you may conclude the model is wrong... dead wrong. needs more work..

    while our "experts are working on a better understanding / better models, these dead wrong people are advising with virtual certainty about global warming, a topic which is surely much more complicated that predicting a single hurricane season.
    sorry, this bunch need to establish their credentials before they are allowed any say anything what so ever. i mean, they're predicting an uninhabitable mediterranean....no rain... hot ?? what are they going to say if it rains more this year? and next?

    what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.

    ideally, you'd like to pump the equatorial water to the poles somehow.
    cooling the equator by several degrees and upping pole temperature by several degrees, what a bonus that would be.
    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lost at C (-minus)
    Posts
    26,679
    Quote Originally Posted by figo
    what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.
    but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

    a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
    b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
    c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

    I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.
    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Heaven-In front of stereo listenin to re-mastered Beatles
    Posts
    12,909
    Quote Originally Posted by tafnut
    Quote Originally Posted by figo
    what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.
    but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

    a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
    b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
    c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

    I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.
    That sounds pretty reasonable to me.
    phsstt!
    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
     
    ... and making certain species extinct in the process. I wonder how much the weather and climate changes have affected wildlife in search of shelter and food.
    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
     
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Lost at C (-minus)
    Posts
    26,679
    Quote Originally Posted by EPelle
    ... and making certain species extinct in the process. I wonder how much the weather and climate changes have affected wildlife in search of shelter and food.
    Animal species come and go all the time, with or without man's 'help'. This one, however, was a pretty spectacular example of man's abilities:

    Quote Originally Posted by Wikipedia
    The Passenger Pigeon (Ectopistes migratorius) or Wild Pigeon is an extinct species of pigeon that was once the most common bird in North America. It is estimated that there were as many as five billion Passenger Pigeons in the United States at the time Europeans arrived in North America.
    :shock:
    Reply With Quote
     

  9. Collapse Details
     
    This is fairly bizarre but I guess it has happened before. An avalanche in WNY:

    http://www.wgrz.com/news/news_article.a ... ryid=44546


    Everyone was whining about the lack of snow and cold in these parts and now they are compliaing because we are getting too much of a good thing.

    http://tinyurl.com/yrpteg

    Difficult to please baby boomers. That's why all the booze and drugs.
    Reply With Quote
     

  10. Collapse Details
     
    Quote Originally Posted by tafnut
    Quote Originally Posted by figo
    what i see from the historical record is that when earths temperature has risen, the effect is generally very good. when temperatures fall, it is very bad news, lots of people die.
    but what's wrong with the 'historical record' is that

    a. things have changed - we won't die of exposure if the temperature cools
    b. past history cannot predict the future if the variables change significantly and dumping fossil fuels exhaust into the atmosphere is pretty drastic.
    c. even if the GlobWarmists are wrong, if we try to cut emissions and conserve our energy use, we still have a great benefit - less pollution and slower use of our depletable natural resources. Why would it NOT make sense to do as the (rational) GlobWarmists ask and try to cut pollution and conserve our natural resources?

    I have NO idea if GW actually exists or whether we're just in a normal climatological cycle, but I DO know we're polluting the hell out of the earth and we are wasting resources we can never get back.
    the above is quite reasonable, very and represents in a nutshell standard environmental green thinking.

    for sure pollution is bad, smog is bad, killing the fish in the ocean is bad, destroying our environment is bad, wasting non-renewable resources is bad.

    bad bad bad. yes, yes, yes.
    i hate concrete, i hate factories, i hate over population.
    i think everyone should practice birth control except for me and my clan (some of them anyway), of course.....

    so it looks like i'm contradicting myself here.
    a bit at least.

    the hypothesis i'm putting forward is that the byproduct of burning fossil fuels may be a positive side effect - warming - and is worth consideration.

    if this cooling effect is real and profound maybe we'll be looking at some artificial means of warming the planet.

    i'm wondering if we can burn fossil fuels in a clean way, it is not such a bad thing and that non-renewable resources such (oil and gas) may last a lot longer than we think. once nonrenewable resources become scarce, there seem to be a great variety of energy sources to tap into, wind, hydro, thermal, fission and fusion.

    in any event, given the ice age cycle, co2 and methane production might not make that much of a dent in the big picture.

    overall man does tend to have a nasty effect on the environment, but nature really delivers the ko punch.... mass extinction events, dinosaurs, large mammals, many past civilizations?

    science, cooperation and technology practiced with mature wisdom will be a key to our long term survival.

    practicing an ill conceived mixture of warped poli-science will lead to a massive waste of time at best.
    Reply With Quote
     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •