global warming data...garbage in...

[Xue Sheng]

Ok so again ill ask a simple question. If we are causing this then how did the earth warm up on its own before people.
according to scientists we are still in the ice age that began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets still exist. So by your theroy up until the 1800's when we discovered coal and oil how during the prior 2.5 million plus years did the earth warm up on its own to melt the rest of the ice that covered much of north america. Also why did it stop warming up on its own and now only during the last 200 years did it start warming again at our hand?

Also there were 4 prior ice ages to this one so how did we cool down and heat up for each of the prior ones with out mans help?

Ice ages can also be triggered by multiple things some of those being absolutely out of our control such as the planets orbital path, axis tilt, volcanic activity or a rather large impact too. I once took a class many years ago that discussed humidity levels in association with Ice ages as well. Planet heats up, more humidity in the air, more humidity more solar radiation is deflected back into space, planet starts to cool down however this is not a quick process. It is interesting stuff to study but the ramifications of it can be rather deadly to the inhabitants of the planet. Frankly I do not want to be in the way of a 2 mile thick glacier or a flood from raising sea level or the second coming of the Younger Dryas. All really cool to study but I would not want to be in the way of one.

I believe that technically, based on climatological date, we are supposed to be in a cooling trend..... but we are not... it appears to be getting warmer which is not part of the predicted cycle based on weather history. And even if this is the end of an Ice Age it is happening rather rapidly based on the historical data. So even though they may say were in an Ice age, glacier melt and the breaking up of ice in Antarctica say we are not, unless it is the dramatic and extremely rapid (based on geological time) end of one and we are talking supersonic quick.

There are multiple reasons for warming and cooling and we, meaning human beings, could now be or have been one of those since we showed up. Just read an interesting article on what ended the Mayans and it could be their farming activities had dire consequences on an already existing draught. We do appear to have a major effect on the planet as a species more so than any other on the planet.

The little ice age that occurred during recent human times (started in the 13th century) that appears it could have been the result of a few things in combination or possibly just one, things such as cyclical lows in solar radiation, changes in thermohayalene current (that one is for elder), increased volcanic activity, and even the possibility of Lower CO2 atmosphere due to decreased numbers in human populations (I doubt the last one could have done it by itself but in combination with one of some of the others possibly). And if CO2 is a contributor (and it is) then increases of it can and will cause heating and all sorts of nasty things can occur once things get warm enough, if you happen to be living on the planet when it happens.

Another thing to think about, if another professor of mine was right, there are a few inactive volcanos under the Antarctic ice sheet and as the ice melts the earth’s crust rebounds they could become active and a lot of ash in the atmosphere, amongst other things a volcano releases, is not a good thing if it is all of then and if I am remembering correctly it is somewhere between 6 to 8

My only point to all this is that we really need to stop arguing and calling global warming fake (see glacial melt and the breaking up of Antarctic ice sheets) and figure out if we can do anything about it… or if we are just along for the ride. If we can do anything about we best get busy before it is too late, if we can’t we better figure out what we can do to survive it and move to higher ground…. Or possibly by all the property in Southern Georgia that borders Florida and let your ancestors become wealthy off of all the beach front property they will one day have to sell.

And there are a TON of things that come along with Global warming that we are not even talking about here that are part of the whole global warming package, many of those not good for us.

 

[pgsmith]

If You want to take control of your life by turing it over to Al Gore Have fun but I dont buy what he is selling.

What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.

I agree 100% there is no need to make up a fake crisis. We should clean up the earth because its the right thing to do. Focus on real issues not something we have no control over. Plant trees because forests are great places to camp and hike, clean up reefs because they are great places to dive and fish, clean the air from real pollutiants because fresh air is better then bad air. keep sewage out of rivers because people want to boat swim and fish in them. Dont over harvest animals so our kids will get to try them too ect ect ect

OK, but you can't possibly believe that big industry will spend one thin dime to prevent pollution if they're not forced to. Surely you're not that naive? Or, based upon your responses and reactions, I guess you really are.
Either way, this horse is dead and polluting a stream. I'm done beating it.

 

[Xue Sheng]

But you don't get it..the only way to FORCE change is by scaring people with imminent extinction.

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today

 

[Tgace]

Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today

Well the extinction of cuddly polar bears then...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[Xue Sheng]

What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.

Al Gore made a movie "An Inconvenient Truth" that was all about Global warming and the disaster to come based on what Al Gore claimed to be scientific evidence, which turned out to be a bit questionable and based on extreme possibilities more that hard science. However it was more propaganda than reality and has a lot to do with, IMO, the current argument. Basically it did more harm than good (again IMO). It was more like the James Cameron version of the Sinking of the Titanic than say a documentary version you may see on the History Channel

 

[ballen0351]

What in the world does Al Gore have to do with anything? You've gotten to the point where you're no longer making any sort of sense, you're just spewing out whatever ideas pop off the top of your head whether they make any sense or not.

Global warming is Al gores baby he made millions off of it

OK, but you can't possibly believe that big industry will spend one thin dime to prevent pollution if they're not forced to. Surely you're not that naive? Or, based upon your responses and reactions, I guess you really are.
Either way, this horse is dead and polluting a stream. I'm done beating it.

So go after them for real problems and pollution not CO2 which we all make in our own bodies. But your right you can't answer a simple question about warming and cooling cycles without admitting it is not man made so you better run along now. Have a good day.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Well the extinction of cuddly polar bears then...

Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

Ever seen an adult polar bear.... I don't think I would want to cuddle one... I don't want them to go extinct either.... but I would not call them cuddly

 

[WC_lun]

Part of what is worrisome is the rapidity of the change. Nature tends to move in eons, not decades. Now granted, if a large meteorite or super volcano erupted, change would be very quick, but weather patterns normally do not change as quick as they have been the last few years.

As long as no one is willing to change first, no one change at all. We are the richest country on Earth. Rightly or wrongly, other countries look to us to take the lead on such matters. Yes, India and China are very large polluters as well. China is already finding that is unsubtanable and making some changes, though I won't say argue they have made large changes. Instead of passing laws that make it illegal to discuss the results of climate change in a scientific way, perhaps we should be condidering what steps we could be taking. burying our heads in the sand will not healp anyone. In the long run it will be far more financially unsettling to not do anything.

 

[ballen0351]

Don't think we will go extinct and I do not think I have even heard a serious discussion on the topic of human extinction form global warming either. Could cause a serious decrease in population, will decrease usable land mass, arable land and livable space, could make existence rather difficult compared to today

So then its the earths way of gaining balance and we get what we deserve right?

 

[ballen0351]

Part of what is worrisome is the rapidity of the change. Nature tends to move in eons, not decades. Now granted, if a large meteorite or super volcano erupted, change would be very quick, but weather patterns normally do not change as quick as they have been the last few years.

As long as no one is willing to change first, no one change at all. We are the richest country on Earth. Rightly or wrongly, other countries look to us to take the lead on such matters. Yes, India and China are very large polluters as well. China is already finding that is unsubtanable and making some changes, though I won't say argue they have made large changes. Instead of passing laws that make it illegal to discuss the results of climate change in a scientific way, perhaps we should be condidering what steps we could be taking. burying our heads in the sand will not healp anyone. In the long run it will be far more financially unsettling to not do anything.

So what steps would you like to see?

 

[Xue Sheng]

Global warming is Al gores baby he made millions off of it

And he hurt things more than helped them because he was more interested in $$$ than truth. Bassically the movie "The Day After Tomorrow" makes more money than a weather Channel documentary

So go after them for real problems and pollution not CO2 which we all make in our own bodies. But your right you can't answer a simple question about warming and cooling cycles without admitting it is not man made so you better run along now. Have a good day.

CO2 alsocomes from the burning of fossil fuels...which is pollution. We also produce Methane which is also part of the issue too. And I am not sureif it is "manmade" or not...I do feel humans are a contributing factor to what is happening but humans may be only part of the issue.

Can you say without any doubt and with totalconviction that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it?

 

[Tgace]

I don't worry about GW...the supervolcanoes and meteors are gonna kill us all first...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/pompeii-supervolcano-super-volcano-doomsday_n_1751840.html

Good times....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

 

[WC_lun]

I don't know...I guess things like what Republicans thought of where coporations got tax credits for pollution emissions under the industry norm. That's one good idea..of course it was held up in congress so it was never voted on. Stricter mileage and emission standards on cars would be another good idea. Maybe higher tarrifs on goods from countries that don't control thier pollution to keep the price of thier goods more in line with US goods. Good for the enviroment and good for the economy do not have to be polar opposites, but you have to start from a place where the science is taken seriously and not discarded for short term profits.

 

[Xue Sheng]

So then its the earths way of gaining balance and we get what we deserve right?

Nope not what I am saying at all.

What I did say was

1) I don't think we will fall victim to extinction
2) I have not heard (or read) any serious discussions about the possibility of human extinction from global warming
3) As the planet gets warmer, things change and as things change it can have adverse effects on the human population
4) As the planet warms, sea level raises therefore you have less land
5) As climates change growing seasons change and farm land will decrease
6) Less land above water means less land to live on
7) All of this could make existence more difficult than it is today, this would be due to population densities, food production and disease


That clear it up for you

 

[ballen0351]

Can you say without any doubt and with totalconviction that humans have absolutely nothing to do with it?[/FONT][/COLOR]

Are we causing the current warming trend not a chance. If the warming was a new thing then I'd say you are right but the earth has been warming for millions of years in order to have melted all the ice that covered the great lakes and most of north America well before we were here to screw it up.

 

[ballen0351]

Nope not what I am saying at all.

What I did say was

1) I don't think we will fall victim to extinction
2) I have not heard (or read) any serious discussions about the possibility of human extinction from global warming
3) As the planet gets warmer, things change and as things change it can have adverse effects on the human population
4) As the planet warms, sea level raises therefore you have less land
5) As climates change growing seasons change and farm land will decrease
6) Less land above water means less land to live on
7) All of this could make existence more difficult than it is today, this would be due to population densities, food production and disease


That clear it up for you

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't thinking that was your point it was more mine. I was saying at some point there will be too many humans to survive on earth and it will need to reset itself kinda like a forest fire is actually healthy for a forest in the long run.

 

[ballen0351]

I don't worry about GW...the supervolcanoes and meteors are gonna kill us all first...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/07/pompeii-supervolcano-super-volcano-doomsday_n_1751840.html

Good times....



Sent from my Kindle Fire using Tapatalk 2

You solved the global warming crisis all we need to do is set off a super volcano

The real danger of a supervolcano is the ash, which -- in large enough quantity -- can collect in the atmosphere and block out the sun,

See that would lower the temps OR even better the excess CO2 we have now is just a security blanket to keep us warm once the volcano erupts. See we are pre planning for a super volcano eruption. Quick everyone go start your cars and pump some more security into the air.

 

[Xue Sheng]

Sorry I guess I wasn't clear. I wasn't thinking that was your point it was more mine. I was saying at some point there will be too many humans to survive on earth and it will need to reset itself kinda like a forest fire is actually healthy for a forest in the long run.

Well the planet may be self-correcting...at least that was a college professor’s theory. And that correction is likely rather catastrophic and you don't want to be around for it.... but I am not sure I would put it like we get what we deserve and I am not sure it is good for us as species.... actually I am fairly sure it isn't but then that is just me

 

[billc]

I heard the authors of this book interviewed...they have a different take on things...



S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)[/QUOTE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Singer

Siegfried Fred Singer (born September 27, 1924) is an Austrian-born American physicist and emeritus professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[SUP][1][/SUP] Singer trained as anatmospheric physicist and is known for his work in space research, atmospheric pollution, rocket and satellite technology, his questioning of the link between UV-B and melanoma rates, and that betweenCFCs and stratospheric ozone loss [SUP][2][/SUP] , his public denial of the health risks of passive smoking, and as an outspoken critic of the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming. He is the author or editor of several books including Global Effects of Environmental Pollution (1970), The Ocean in Human Affairs (1989), Global Climate Change (1989), The Greenhouse Debate Continued (1992), andHot Talk, Cold Science (1997). He has also co-authored Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years (2007) with Dennis Avery, and Climate Change Reconsidered (2009) with Craig Idso.[SUP][3][/SUP]

During Operation Desert Storm in 1991, he argued that smoke from the Kuwaiti oil fires would have little impact, in opposition to most commentators. He debated the astronomer Carl Sagan on ABC's Nightline, Sagan arguing that the smoke might loft into the upper atmosphere and lead to massive agricultural failures. Singer argued that it would rise to 3,000 feet (910 m) then be rained out after a few days.[SUP][47][/SUP] Singer's position proved correct: the fires had little impact beyond the Gulf region.[SUP][48][/SUP]

http://www.amazon.com/Unstoppable-Global-Warming-Updated-Expanded/dp/0742551245/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1345759244&sr=1-1&keywords=unstoppable+global+warming

Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years, Updated and Expanded Edition [Paperback]
S. Fred Singer (Author), Dennis T. Avery (Author)

Singer and Avery present—in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence—the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Using historic data from two millennia of recorded history combined with the natural physical records found in ice cores, seabed sediment, cave stalagmites, and tree rings, Unstoppable Global Warming argues that the 1,500 year solar-driven cycle that has always controlled the earth's climate remains the driving force in the current warming trend.

Trillions of dollars spent on reducing fossil fuel use would have no effect on today's rising temperatures. The public policy key, Singer and Avery propose, is adaptation, not fruitless attempts at prevention. Further, they offer convincing evidence that civilization's most successful eras have coincided with the cycle's warmest peaks. With the added benefit of modern technology, humanity can not only survive global climate change, but thrive.

R

eview

Singer and Avery present in popular language supported by in-depth scientific evidence the compelling concept that global temperatures have been rising mostly or entirely because of a natural cycle. Unstoppable Global Warming explains why we're warming, why it's not very dangerous, and why we can't stop it anyway. (Science Daily )

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery highlight the many fallacies associated with the hysterical claims of dangerous climate change and unsubstantiated computer projections surrounding the theory of human caused global warming. They have managed to lay out, dissect, and expose the facts in a thoroughly readable style. Unstoppable Global Warming is a ‘must read’ for everybody who is interested in the real issues surrounding climate change. (William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research )

Singer and Avery skillfully present their case for the existence of a solar-induced 1,500 year cycle that generates warming and cooling of the Earth's temperature irrespective of the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases. The authors even more skillfully argue the implications of their findings to the ongoing heated debate regarding the human contribution to observed and future changes in climate. (Robert C. Balling, Jr., Arizona State University )

Fred Singer and Dennis Avery have put together an impressive collection of 'reasons to believe that global warming may not be as bad as some people are telling us'—in other words, that natural variations, rather than human-emitted greenhouse gases, have tended to control climate. Their exhaustive list of scientific references, mostly from refereed journals, only underscores their statements. Bravo for a job well done! (George H. Taylor, State Climatologist, Oregon Climate Service )

This book is must reading for anyone concerned about global warming. The authors stress that "consensus" has no place in science, only hard-headed testing of speculation. Their testing of the earth's erratic, moderate warming since 1850 leads them to the planet's recently discovered—but already broadly studied—1500-year climate cycle. (Frederick Seitz, former President, National Academy of Sciences )

Real science in, real science out. A masterpiece of understanding, dispelling the computer myths of manmade global warming. Please read this book. (David Bellamy, Order of the British Empire, academic, author and host of British TV documentaries )

A wonderful new book. . . . meticulously researched and footnoted. (The Washington Times )

...a thoughtful book by two respected scientists... (National Association of Manufacturers Shopfloor.Org )

Recommended (CHOICE )

This well written book is arguably the best book to date on the politics and science of global warming. (Hawaii Reporter )

 

[Sukerkin]

Just to clarify some of the misconceptions that seem to be creeping in from those that are more politically motivated than scientifically engaged, the last ice age was less than 12,000 years ago.

The world has not been warming for millions of years for Inter-glacials tend to be quite short, speaking in geological time, as Ice Age seems to be the default condition for Earth. Most guesstimates are that we have several thousand years to go before this inter-glacial is over but the influence we are having on the chaotic system that is climate could swing things either way i.e. we could either delay the onset of the next Ice Age or precipitate it through a 'snap inversion' (where the system trends in the opposite way than that that is expected).

What has caused the worry of late is the rate of warming, which coincides with the flowering of human agricultural and industrial expansion - what many people forget is that we are more responsible for the release of methane from our livestock than we are for the release of CO2 from our cars.

Change the composition of the atmosphere and you change the composition of the biosphere - the danger is that it changes to the point where humans are stretched in their ability to adapt - it's happened before when we went down to as few as 10,000 individuals world wide, which is why we are all related to each other very closely.

In biological terms we are not very diversified, which makes us vulnerable to environmental change and our current focus on consumption rather than preparation is undermining the ability we have to manage the environment to suit us (which is what has made us so successful a creature).

So to stick to the 'I'm going to consume and pollute as much as I want' path is not very helpful to our survival.