Jump to content

The 'Lefts' answer to Global Warming


sprinter

Recommended Posts

First off, someone needs to tell these morons, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!! But to come up with the idea of a 'nuclear winter' in order to reverse a non-existent trend in weather, these people are totally f**king crazy. But this stems from the fact that they think there are too many people on this planet and think the population should be reduced by about 80%.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

 

Reversing Global Warming?

 

The global cooling caused by these high carbon clouds wouldn't be as catastrophic as a superpower-versus-superpower nuclear winter, but "the effects would still be regarded as leading to unprecedented climate change," research physical scientist Luke Oman said during a press briefing Friday at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science in Washington, D.C.

 

Earth is currently in a long-term warming trend. After a regional nuclear war, though, average global temperatures would drop by 2.25 degrees F (1.25 degrees C) for two to three years afterward, the models suggest.

 

At the extreme, the tropics, Europe, Asia, and Alaska would cool by 5.4 to 7.2 degrees F (3 to 4 degrees C), according to the models. Parts of the Arctic and Antarctic would actually warm a bit, due to shifted wind and ocean-circulation patterns, the researchers said.

 

After ten years, average global temperatures would still be 0.9 degree F (0.5 degree C) lower than before the nuclear war, the models predict.

 

Will these people ever stop the lies? The earth is not currently in a long-term warming period. But they keep telling the same old lie over and over and the clueless will believe it.

Edited by sprinter
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

First off, someone needs to tell these morons, THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING!!!! But to come up with the idea of a 'nuclear winter' in order to reverse a non-existent trend in weather, these people are totally f**king crazy. But this stems from the fact that they think there are too many people on this planet and think the population should be reduced by about 80%.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2011/02/110223-nuclear-war-winter-global-warming-environment-science-climate-change/

 

 

 

Will these people ever stop the lies? The earth is not currently in a long-term warming period. But they keep telling the same old lie over and over and the clueless will believe it.

 

 

It is a poorly written article with no clear point of view.

 

I don't think it is making an argument in favor of nuclear war.

 

 

"Our results suggest that agriculture could be severely impacted, especially in areas that are susceptible to late-spring and early-fall frosts," said Oman, of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland.

 

"Examples similar to the crop failures and famines experienced following the Mount Tambora eruption in 1815 could be widespread and last several years," he added. That Indonesian volcano ushered in "the year without summer," a time of famines and unrest. (See pictures of the Mount Tambora eruption.)

 

It certainly is not the Left's answer to Global Climate Change, which is happening regardless of the cause.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinter, while I wholeheartedly agree with you on these left wing climate nazi's, I must comment on the temp thing.

I'm assuming you meant to say there is no proof of MAN MADE global warming.

Actually, the earth is always warming and cooling. Before the ice age, the earth was much warmer that it is today. As the ice age set in, the temp dropped. when it bottomed out, then the earth was on a warming trend..until the mini ice age.

We are currently warming from the low point of the mini ice age and have not yet reached the temperature that the earth was during the Roman era.

 

At some point, the earth as it always has, will change the temp direction due to influences and it's design.

 

If there were no people on earth, the temp would STILL fluctuate.

 

I've said it before but it bears repeating;

As the sun heats the earth and the oceans, more evaporation of the oceans cause a blocking effect by the clouds. This in turn allows less sun (alpha/beta/gamma etc rays) which in turn make the earth cool, which reduces evaporation and the forming of clouds. The lack of clouds again allow more sun...wash/rinse/repeat.

This occurs at a minimum of 5-700 year cycles. For longer term heating/cooling cycles the reason is the same but there are a lot more factors involved than simple water vapour.

 

The bullshit is when all of a sudden it's mans fault for producing CO2...when CO2 went UP markedly from 1940-1975 and yet temps went DOWN which led these same left wing climate nazi's to scream we would be in an ice age by the year 2000 unless we (pick whatever money related issue you want). Of course CO2 went HIGHER and the temps went UP from 1975-2000 which then they screamed AHHH we'll all burn up unless we cut CO2!!

So, first it's going to make us freeze, and the proof is the down trend, and now it's going to burn and the up trend is the proof?

WHAT?

Edited by goinbroke2
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinter, while I wholeheartedly agree with you on these left wing climate nazi's, I must comment on the temp thing.

I'm assuming you meant to say there is no proof of MAN MADE global warming.

Actually, the earth is always warming and cooling. Before the ice age, the earth was much warmer that it is today. As the ice age set in, the temp dropped. when it bottomed out, then the earth was on a warming trend..until the mini ice age.

We are currently warming from the low point of the mini ice age and have not yet reached the temperature that the earth was during the Roman era.

 

At some point, the earth as it always has, will change the temp direction due to influences and it's design.

 

If there were no people on earth, the temp would STILL fluctuate.

 

I've said it before but it bears repeating;

As the sun heats the earth and the oceans, more evaporation of the oceans cause a blocking effect by the clouds. This in turn allows less sun (alpha/beta/gamma etc rays) which in turn make the earth cool, which reduces evaporation and the forming of clouds. The lack of clouds again allow more sun...wash/rinse/repeat.

This occurs at a minimum of 5-700 year cycles. For longer term heating/cooling cycles the reason is the same but there are a lot more factors involved than simple water vapour.

 

The bullshit is when all of a sudden it's mans fault for producing CO2...when CO2 went UP markedly from 1940-1975 and yet temps went DOWN which led these same left wing climate nazi's to scream we would be in an ice age by the year 2000 unless we (pick whatever money related issue you want). Of course CO2 went HIGHER and the temps went UP from 1975-2000 which then they screamed AHHH we'll all burn up unless we cut CO2!!

So, first it's going to make us freeze, and the proof is the down trend, and now it's going to burn and the up trend is the proof?

WHAT?

 

 

Bingo! Just like the Christians who pray for someone who is sick or injured. If they make it then it was because of their prayer and God's grace. But if they don't pull through then it was just God's will. So if you believe that it's God's will then it doesn't matter whether you pray for them or not. Or if you believe that praying for them can change God's will then it must be your fault for not praying hard enough.

 

It's easy to make the results match your theory when there isn't any hard scientific proof either way.

 

Here is what I really would like to know. How can scientists accurately determine the temperature hundreds or thousands of years ago?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Spinter, while I wholeheartedly agree with you on these left wing climate nazi's, I must comment on the temp thing.

I'm assuming you meant to say there is no proof of MAN MADE global warming.

Actually, the earth is always warming and cooling. Before the ice age, the earth was much warmer that it is today. As the ice age set in, the temp dropped. when it bottomed out, then the earth was on a warming trend..until the mini ice age.

We are currently warming from the low point of the mini ice age and have not yet reached the temperature that the earth was during the Roman era.

 

At some point, the earth as it always has, will change the temp direction due to influences and it's design.

 

The problem with the warming trend is who do you believe? Satellite temperature data which is far more accurate, but only goes back about 30 years shows an average drop of .0165 degrees Kelvin or Celsius (delta T's are the same) from the 4 zones. You can see that from figure 7 of http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

 

But I do agree, man has little effect on this change.

 

Analysis A paper published in scientific journal Nature this week has reignited the debate about Global Warming, by predicting that the earth won't be getting any warmer until 2015. Researchers at the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences have factored in cyclical oceanic into their climate model, and produced a different forecast to the "consensus" models which don't.

 

But how will we know whether the earth is warming or cooling? Today, it all depends on the data source.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/

 

Just how accurate are space-based measurements of the temperature of the Earth's atmosphere? In a recent edition of Nature, scientists Dr. John Christy of the University of Alabama in Huntsville, and Dr. Roy Spencer of NASA/Marshall describe in detail just how reliable these measurements are.

 

Why is it important?

 

The question is very important, as these temperature measurements from satellites in space are one of our most important windows into measuring and understanding the phenomenon of Global Warming.

 

Over the past century, global measurements of the temperature at the Earth's surface have indicated a warming trend of between 0.3 and 0.6 degrees C. But many - especially the early - computer-based global climate models (GCM's) predict that the rate should be even higher if it is due to the man-made "Greenhouse Effect". Furthermore, these computer models also predict that the Earth's lower atmosphere should behave in lock-step with the surface, but with temperature increases that are even more pronounced. (Get the latest on the Earth's Temperature from Space by clicking on the diagram!!)

 

What is the "Controversy"?

 

Unlike the surface-based temperatures, global temperature measurements of the Earth's lower atmosphere obtained from satellites reveal no definitive warming trend over the past two decades. The slight trend that is in the data actually appears to be downward. The largest fluctuations in the satellite temperature data are not from any man-made activity, but from natural phenomena such as large volcanic eruptions from Mt. Pinatubo, and from El Niño. So the programs which model global warming in a computer say the temperature of the Earth's lower atmosphere should be going up markedly, but actual measurements of the temperature of the lower atmosphere reveal no such pronounced activity.

http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/1997/essd06oct97_1/

 

NASA was able to put a man on the moon, but the space agency can't tell you what the temperature was when it did. By its own admission, NASA's temperature records are in even worse shape than the besmirched Climate-gate data.

 

http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/03/30/nasa-data-worse-than-climategate-data/

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

but man has affected the global climate, perhaps not in ways that will raise the sea level 20 feet tomorrow, but it is happening.

 

Prove it.

 

What caused the huge swings in global temps in the past before the industrial revolution?

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And maybe a new, honest approach is needed:

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/feb/27/can-these-scientists-end-climate-change-war

 

Muller calls his latest obsession the Berkeley Earth project. The aim is so simple that the complexity and magnitude of the undertaking is easy to miss. Starting from scratch, with new computer tools and more data than has ever been used, they will arrive at an independent assessment of global warming. The team will also make every piece of data it uses – 1.6bn data points – freely available on a website. It will post its workings alongside, including full information on how more than 100 years of data from thousands of instruments around the world are stitched together to give a historic record of the planet's temperature.

 

Muller is fed up with the politicised row that all too often engulfs climate science. By laying all its data and workings out in the open, where they can be checked and challenged by anyone, the Berkeley team hopes to achieve something remarkable: a broader consensus on global warming. In no other field would Muller's dream seem so ambitious, or perhaps, so naive.

 

"We are bringing the spirit of science back to a subject that has become too argumentative and too contentious," Muller says, over a cup of tea. "We are an independent, non-political, non-partisan group. We will gather the data, do the analysis, present the results and make all of it available. There will be no spin, whatever we find." Why does Muller feel compelled to shake up the world of climate change? "We are doing this because it is the most important project in the world today. Nothing else comes close," he says.

 

Muller is moving into crowded territory with sharp elbows. There are already three heavyweight groups that could be considered the official keepers of the world's climate data. Each publishes its own figures that feed into the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Nasa's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City produces a rolling estimate of the world's warming. A separate assessment comes from another US agency, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa). The third group is based in the UK and led by the Met Office. They all take readings from instruments around the world to come up with a rolling record of the Earth's mean surface temperature. The numbers differ because each group uses its own dataset and does its own analysis, but they show a similar trend. Since pre-industrial times, all point to a warming of around 0.75C.

 

You might think three groups was enough, but Muller rolls out a list of shortcomings, some real, some perceived, that he suspects might undermine public confidence in global warming records. For a start, he says, warming trends are not based on all the available temperature records. The data that is used is filtered and might not be as representative as it could be. He also cites a poor history of transparency in climate science, though others argue many climate records and the tools to analyse them have been public for years.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forest fires and solar spot activity....

Forest fires would be short term, but solar activity is dead on IMO.

 

A temporary cloud cover can change temps by up to 10 degrees. A few degrees in latitude makes a huge difference in temps just because of the angle of the sun. Look at the temp difference between the equator and the poles or between summer and winter just due to the angle of the sun and distance from the sun.

 

The sun can cause a temperature difference of 150 degrees between different points on the globe, but it's more likely that some slight change in atmospheric gas is more responsible for a 1 degree change in temps? Sorry, not buying it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Prove it.

 

What caused the huge swings in global temps in the past before the industrial revolution?

if my calculations are correct this topic will spew thousands for megabytes of useless data presented as fact when it is merely speculation on small parts of a whole system. as for your assertion I am curious about which huge swings in particular you are speaking of as most climatic events in the earths past can be explained by one or more fields of science.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the perspective of human experience, it appears that the climate has never been stable. So it is unreasonable to assume that it would be stable in the future. The hysteria among the global climate change is man made, and therefore evil, brigade (used to be global cooling, until that didn't pan out then global warming until that didn't pay out...) is that there is a perfect climate, and we passed that point about 1990.

 

So the job of those who want us all to believe that the sky is either getting hotter, colder or falling is this: Prove to us all that this is not natural in origin. This is met with a lot of hand wringing and excuses as, such proof is impossible. And the unspoken inverse is that proving it is man man made is also impossible. Either way the point is moot, unless you are also willing to take that next great leap of faith and believe that we can control the climate. This, of course brings to light the next flight of fantasy, first that we can control the weather (remember, the weather is small in comparison to the climate...), and then that we can then do this with such precision that we can fine tune the temperature to less than a half degree, 100 years into the future.

 

None of this requires you to be anything more than rational.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

if my calculations are correct this topic will spew thousands for megabytes of useless data presented as fact when it is merely speculation on small parts of a whole system. as for your assertion I am curious about which huge swings in particular you are speaking of as most climatic events in the earths past can be explained by one or more fields of science.

I would hope that all climatic events in Earth's past can be explained by Science...........

 

Let's take the most obvious one: Once upon a time there were vast glaciers covering North America. They melted, way before cars and industrial pollution and deforestation. Why?

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a link to a Nat Geo article "Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says"

 

Thank you Captain Obvious.

 

I'd like to hear the explanation for why Mars is also warming at the same time as Earth without any people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forest fires would be short term, but solar activity is dead on IMO.

 

A temporary cloud cover can change temps by up to 10 degrees. A few degrees in latitude makes a huge difference in temps just because of the angle of the sun. Look at the temp difference between the equator and the poles or between summer and winter just due to the angle of the sun and distance from the sun.

 

The sun can cause a temperature difference of 150 degrees between different points on the globe, but it's more likely that some slight change in atmospheric gas is more responsible for a 1 degree change in temps? Sorry, not buying it.

 

 

You are ruining your credibility by arguing against the aspects of this debate that are well founded and understood instead of those that are acknowledged to be less certain. Global warming IS happening, CO2 DOES trap heat.... There is no uncertainty here. Just because you haven't grasped the concepts yet doesn't mean it's false. What IS uncertain is the role human society has played in affecting all of this.

 

If you don't think 7 billion humans can have an impact on the planet, i'm curious to know how many you think it would take? 20 billion? 100 billion? 1 trillion? The notion of the earth as an inexhaustible resource may have been appropriate at the time the Bible was written, but I'm sorry, we have now seen the limits of this planet in more ways than one, and we're butting right up against them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sun can cause a temperature difference of 150 degrees between different points on the globe, but it's more likely that some slight change in atmospheric gas is more responsible for a 1 degree change in temps? Sorry, not buying it.

 

Oh, and "some slight change"? CO2 levels used to cycle between 175 and 275 ppmv. It's now sitting at 390 ppmv, higher than at any time in the last 800,000 years.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth's_atmosphere

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mustang CO2 does not "trap" heat. This is a perfect example of just how brain washed you have become. Learn the physics of exactly how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere and you will start to understand the gross misapplication of the term Green House Gas. CO2 resonates when subjected to radiation of the appropriate bandwidth. This very small movement generates a tiny amount of friction, and therefore heat. It in no way acts like a glass ceiling that won't allow heat to pass through. Read the physics and skip the bad analogies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most direct method for measuring atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations for periods before direct sampling is to measure bubbles of air (fluid or gas inclusions) trapped in the Antarctic or Greenland ice caps. The most widely accepted of such studies come from a variety of Antarctic cores and indicate that atmospheric CO2 levels were about 260 – 280 ppmv immediately before industrial emissions began and did not vary much from this level during the preceding 10,000 years (10 ka). In 1832 Antarctic ice core levels were 284 ppmv.[17]

CO2 concentrations over the last 400,000 years

Changes in carbon dioxide during the Phanerozoic (the last 542 million years). The recent period is located on the left-hand side of the plot, and it appears that much of the last 550 million years has experienced carbon dioxide concentrations significantly higher than the present day.

 

One study disputed the claim of stable CO2 levels during the present interglacial of the last 10 ka. Based on an analysis of fossil leaves, Wagner et al.[18] argued that CO2 levels during the period 7 – 10 ka were significantly higher (~300 ppm) and contained substantial variations that may be correlated to climate variations. Others have disputed such claims, suggesting they are more likely to reflect calibration problems than actual changes in CO2.[19] Relevant to this dispute is the observation that Greenland ice cores often report higher and more variable CO2 values than similar measurements in Antarctica. However, the groups responsible for such measurements (e.g. H. J Smith et al.[20]) believe the variations in Greenland cores result from in situ decomposition of calcium carbonate dust found in the ice. When dust levels in Greenland cores are low, as they nearly always are in Antarctic cores, the researchers report good agreement between Antarctic and Greenland CO2 measurements.

 

The longest ice core record comes from East Antarctica, where ice has been sampled to an age of 800 ka.[4] During this time, the atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration has varied by volume between 180 – 210 ppm during ice ages, increasing to 280 – 300 ppm during warmer interglacials.[21][22]

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mustang CO2 does not "trap" heat. This is a perfect example of just how brain washed you have become. Learn the physics of exactly how CO2 behaves in the atmosphere and you will start to understand the gross misapplication of the term Green House Gas. CO2 resonates when subjected to radiation of the appropriate bandwidth. This very small movement generates a tiny amount of friction, and therefore heat. It in no way acts like a glass ceiling that won't allow heat to pass through. Read the physics and skip the bad analogies.

 

Dude, learn the physics? I just finished a Masters in Mechanical Engineering with a focus in environmental engineering. I took entire classes devoted to the impact of air emissions and the mechanisms through which they affect our environment. I assure you i fully understand the greenhouse effect. "To trap heat" is a nice concise way of stating the overall effect the gas has on our planet, and it is a well understood effect. Don't tell me to "read the physics" - i've done my share, what qualifications do you have?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a perfect example of just how brain washed you have become.

 

"Brain washed?" Try "Just devoted the past 8 years of my life to learning", but then again, education seems to be a dirty word these days, as if the world's professors are a corrupt group, somehow bent on telling a bunch of lies for no apparent reason.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Brain washed?" Try "Just devoted the past 8 years of my life to learning", but then again, education seems to be a dirty word these days, as if the world's professors are a corrupt group, somehow bent on telling a bunch of lies for no apparent reason.

 

So you're totally discounting any effect the sun might have in this? Changes in the sun's rays can vary temps by as much as 150 degrees, yet it's inconceivable that a minor change in the Sun's output could change Earth temps by 1 or 2 degrees?

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Mars has warmed just like the Earth - without any "greenhouse gases"?

 

Going from 280 to 390 PPM is a change of 1/100th of 1% (0.0001).

 

Nope. Not buying it. At least not until somebody explains the Mars thing.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're totally discounting any effect the sun might have in this?

please tell me how i implied that the sun doesn't affect the earth's temperature.

 

Changes in the sun's rays can vary temps by as much as 150 degrees, yet it's inconceivable that a minor change in the Sun's output could change Earth temps by 1 or 2 degrees?

 

It's totally conceivable that the amount of solar energy hitting the planet would affect the earth's temperature. In fact, it's inconceivable that it would not have an effect. It's also conceivable that releasing 8,000,000,000 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere might have an impact on things.

 

 

I'm still waiting for an explanation for why Mars has warmed just like the Earth - without any "greenhouse gases"?

 

That's the amazing thing about science. See, we don't actually know everything at the beginning. It takes a little bit of work. Does that mean we shouldn't anything until we know everything in the universe? I think fully grasping all the details of an entirely different planet's climate system might be a bit over the top if that's your requirement before we lift a finger towards helping out our own planet.

 

Going from 280 to 390 PPM is a change of 1/100th of 1% (0.0001).

 

I don't know what that is, but it's not math. Would you apply that to your analysis of CO levels in your home? 5ppmv is normal, so 35 ppmv should be fine too right?

 

Nope. Not buying it. At least not until somebody explains the Mars thing.

 

Look, at some point, you have to ask, "how certain do we have to be before it might be worth taking some precautions?" Right now, you've got the vast majority of people who devote their lives to studying the earth's climate. Sure there is uncertainty, we will never be 100% about ANYTHING. And yes, there are a few respected scientists who are quite loudly expressing their differing opinions. We should listen to them too. But we should not give them an unproportional amount of attention, which they certainly do receive. We should also have a look at the underlying motives behind the various factions at play here. Who stands to benefit from burning few fossil fuels? Who stands to lose? Are these biases getting in the way? I'll tell you one thing, there's a lot more money behind one of those two sides, I'll let you guess which one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...