Global Warming In Thailand

[teatree]

*giggle* JR Texas got more buzz words than Keith Olberman...

I don't watch American TV, so I had to look up Keith Olberman.

Teatree does not seem to grasp what he/she is posting or any replies to what he/she is posting.

And Teatree continues to distort my views.

Given that, I will not respond to Teatree again.

Oh I beg to differ.

I grasp that warming and cooling cycles are natural. The Earth goes through a period of warming and then goes through a period of cooling and this is repeated again and again and again. If you took the time to look at historical records instead of letting CNN do your reasoning for you, you may even grasp it too. The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

Anyway, take your ball and go home. I don't want to waste my time replying to you anymore either.

[shriah]

More than 19 000 scientists are on record expressing the view that there is not sufficient evidence of human influence on global climate to justify any corrective public policy. The global warming industry is trying to fix an alleged problem that the scientific community has not yet been able to define, despite more than $15 billion spent in the last decade trying to find evidence to support the claim

But Tex and Jingthing know better they trust their MSM source without question

Read this link Oregon Petition or watch this clip The Great Petition Fraud . I am sorry if someone have posted this early.

[Garry9999]

*giggle* JR Texas got more buzz words than Keith Olberman...

I don't watch American TV, so I had to look up Keith Olberman.

Teatree does not seem to grasp what he/she is posting or any replies to what he/she is posting.

And Teatree continues to distort my views.

Given that, I will not respond to Teatree again.

Oh I beg to differ.

I grasp that warming and cooling cycles are natural. The Earth goes through a period of warming and then goes through a period of cooling and this is repeated again and again and again. If you took the time to look at historical records instead of letting CNN do your reasoning for you, you may even grasp it too. The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

Anyway, take your ball and go home. I don't want to waste my time replying to you anymore either.

Hi Teatree, You have to admire JR, he's stayed with the same line over and over again. BIG OIL, BIG OIL, OIL. Hats off to you JR, you don't give up easy. Please keep debating the subject.

Scientific method: refers to a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge. To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning. A scientific method consists of the collection of data through observation and experimentation, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Edited September 8, 2009 by Garry9999

[bonobo]

The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

You have never really addressed my two main positions that one, minor or major, shouldn't man's impact be minimized, and two, that many of the proposed methods of combating global warming (e.g. using renewable resources, requiring tighter emission standards, raising fuel  efficiency in cars, etc.) have significant positive benefits for our society as a whole, even if they had ZERO impact on global warming.

I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities and what is natural cycles.  Truth be told, I rather think natural cycles are the main culprit here, so-to-speak, with human activity merely exacerbating the situation.  But natural or man-made, we should be doing what we can to mitigate the severity of global warming, and we can also enjoy the other positive side benefits that our actions can cause.

[Garry9999]

The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

You have never really addressed my two main positions that one, minor or major, shouldn't man's impact be minimized, and two, that many of the proposed methods of combating global warming (e.g. using renewable resources, requiring tighter emission standards, raising fuel  efficiency in cars, etc.) have significant positive benefits for our society as a whole, even if they had ZERO impact on global warming.

I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities and what is natural cycles.  Truth be told, I rather think natural cycles are the main culprit here, so-to-speak, with human activity merely exacerbating the situation.  But natural or man-made, we should be doing what we can to mitigate the severity of global warming, and we can also enjoy the other positive side benefits that our actions can cause.

"shouldn't man's impact be minimized"

"I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities"

You should really have a good think about what you just posted.

[Rionoir]

The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

You have never really addressed my two main positions that one, minor or major, shouldn't man's impact be minimized, and two, that many of the proposed methods of combating global warming (e.g. using renewable resources, requiring tighter emission standards, raising fuel efficiency in cars, etc.) have significant positive benefits for our society as a whole, even if they had ZERO impact on global warming.

I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities and what is natural cycles. Truth be told, I rather think natural cycles are the main culprit here, so-to-speak, with human activity merely exacerbating the situation. But natural or man-made, we should be doing what we can to mitigate the severity of global warming, and we can also enjoy the other positive side benefits that our actions can cause.

Well if we all used that logic we should go back to living in grass huts and walking anywhere we ever go, since just about everything we do affects the environment in some way or another.

Look at hybrid cars... I just saw a report on the news that these "environmental friendly" cars are using up some rare mineral, and a LOT of it. haha F'ing hypocritical if you ask me.

I for one DO care what percentage of the problem we are causing... however, there is ZERO PROOF that we are causing ANY of it, and the global warmings crazies would like us to believe we are causing 99% of it. The earth is going to heat up and cool down regardless of what we do. IF we are making it heat up 1% faster than it would've otherwise... umm... it doesn't seem like much of an argument to me for drastically changing our lifestyle and ruining our economy.

Would you cut off one of your legs if it means you could live an extra year at the end of your life? I sure as shit wouldn't...

[Thaddeus]

The Great Petition Fraud . I am sorry if someone have posted this early.

We are sorry that we did not know that some of our climate specialist were veterinarians (or words to that effect, accompanied by the sound of dueling banjos)

Well, that's me convinced, I'll just throw away my geology qualifications and start examining the teeth of yokels instead..... by this method I will learn the ultimate truth.

[shriah]

I posted it to the Quoted posted which says that 19000 or 31000 " scientist " from USA have signed a "Online Petition" that Global Warming is not caused by Humans so it should be true . I am just trying to say its not so nothing more than that. The 31000 scientist are may or may not be real and many can't prove that they are really scientist. I am not trying to convince you of anything other than that all the Scientist signed the petition may not be real .

More than 19 000 scientists are on record expressing the view that there is not sufficient evidence of human influence on global climate to justify any corrective public policy.

[bonobo]

The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

You have never really addressed my two main positions that one, minor or major, shouldn't man's impact be minimized, and two, that many of the proposed methods of combating global warming (e.g. using renewable resources, requiring tighter emission standards, raising fuel  efficiency in cars, etc.) have significant positive benefits for our society as a whole, even if they had ZERO impact on global warming.

I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities and what is natural cycles.  Truth be told, I rather think natural cycles are the main culprit here, so-to-speak, with human activity merely exacerbating the situation.  But natural or man-made, we should be doing what we can to mitigate the severity of global warming, and we can also enjoy the other positive side benefits that our actions can cause.

"shouldn't man's impact be minimized"

"I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities"

You should really have a good think about what you just posted.

Why is that?

I am saying I don't care if man's impact is 100 % or 1 %, we should work to minimize that impact.

[bonobo]

The impact of human activities on the climate is really very minor compared to Mother Nature.

You have never really addressed my two main positions that one, minor or major, shouldn't man's impact be minimized, and two, that many of the proposed methods of combating global warming (e.g. using renewable resources, requiring tighter emission standards, raising fuel efficiency in cars, etc.) have significant positive benefits for our society as a whole, even if they had ZERO impact on global warming.

I really don't care what is the percentage of global warming caused by human activities and what is natural cycles. Truth be told, I rather think natural cycles are the main culprit here, so-to-speak, with human activity merely exacerbating the situation. But natural or man-made, we should be doing what we can to mitigate the severity of global warming, and we can also enjoy the other positive side benefits that our actions can cause.

Well if we all used that logic we should go back to living in grass huts and walking anywhere we ever go, since just about everything we do affects the environment in some way or another.

Look at hybrid cars... I just saw a report on the news that these "environmental friendly" cars are using up some rare mineral, and a LOT of it. haha F'ing hypocritical if you ask me.

I for one DO care what percentage of the problem we are causing... however, there is ZERO PROOF that we are causing ANY of it, and the global warmings crazies would like us to believe we are causing 99% of it. The earth is going to heat up and cool down regardless of what we do. IF we are making it heat up 1% faster than it would've otherwise... umm... it doesn't seem like much of an argument to me for drastically changing our lifestyle and ruining our economy.

Would you cut off one of your legs if it means you could live an extra year at the end of your life? I sure as shit wouldn't...

Sorry, but I have to say that is a rather specious argument.

No one is advocating grass huts and an abandonment of modern conveniences.  Far from it.  But people are advocating renewable resources, for example.  Bumping up our wind power from less than 1% to 20%, as Germany has done, would lower our dependence on foreign fossil fuels, create many, many jobs, and lower pollution.  As I have posted before, what is the downside?

And why is using a rare mineral, whatever that supposedly is, hypocritical?  Are minerals on the endangered species list?  Does using them pollute the air we breath?  

Most of the "fixes" for global warming would help the economy, not ruin it, as you contend.  New technology brings jobs, and those who get on board will benefit from the entire green-based revolution.

It is my humble opinion that the anti-global warming crazies are far crazier than the global warming crazies.  Doing nothing but continuing our modus operandi will have sever consequences, not just with global warming, but with pollution and peak oil.  

I understand completely how people point to previous cycles in the earth's history ranging from the Snowball Earth to dinosaurs in Antarctica.  Makes sense to me.  But all you have to do is look at man-made micro-climate changes to realize that man can change the earth's climate. To what degree, I think that is still open for some debate.  But once again, how can developing new technologies, using more renewable resources, lowering emissions, and increasing energy efficiencies hurt us even if they have zero effect on the earth's climate (if you believe man has no effect on it now)?

[chuckd]

This just in from Investor's Business Daily. A well regarded think tank.

The last paragraph sums up all this global warming hysteria very well. Do we really want to commit economic suicide over an un-proven theory?

++++++++++++++

Sun-Caused Warming

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A team of international scientists has finally figured out why sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather. It shows the folly of fearing the SUV while dismissing that thermonuclear furnace in the sky.

Mankind once worshiped the sun. Now the world studiously ignores it as nations prepare to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, in Copenhagen in December. Something is indeed rotten in Denmark.

Our own government is committed to fighting climate change whether it be through Son of Kyoto or our own growth-capping, job-killing cap-and-trade legislation known as Waxman-Markey.

Despite the sun being the major source of all energy on earth, supporters of man-caused global warming have dismissed the sun's role in climate change. They say the historic 11-year solar cycle changes the amount of energy reaching the earth by about only 0.1% — not enough to account for temperature rises this century.

The Aug. 28 issue of the journal Science details how the scientific team led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a century's worth of data and three powerful computer models, figured out just how small changes in solar activity can trigger great changes in earth's climate.

The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures during solar maximums act in a way that amplifies the sun's influence. The slight increase in solar energy in the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone, warming the air in the tropics where sunlight is most intense.

The additional energy also helps produce more ozone that absorbs even more solar energy. The increased sunlight causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific.

This stratospheric energy absorption and sea surface warming can intensify winds and rainfall, and ultimately influence global weather in ways that amplify the sun's influence.

"The sun, the stratosphere and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence such events as winter rainfall in North America," says study author Gerald Meehl. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."

The world has significantly cooled in the last decade, a period that corresponds to a decline and virtual halt in sunspot activity. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that in 2008 and 2009 the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, has said that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long-, medium- and even short-time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

Current solar inactivity is similar to what scientists call the Maunder Minimum, a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 that spawned what is known as the Little Ice Age. At Christmas, Londoners could ice skate on the frozen Thames and New Yorkers could walk over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

The NCAR study shows how complicated atmospheric and climate science really is and how many variables must be factored in to have even a basic understanding of all the components that make up and influence earth's climate before the world commits economic suicide.

[bonobo]

This just in from Investor's Business Daily. A well regarded think tank.

The last paragraph sums up all this global warming hysteria very well. Do we really want to commit economic suicide over an un-proven theory?

++++++++++++++

Sun-Caused Warming

By INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY | Posted Tuesday, September 08, 2009 4:20 PM PT

Climate Change: A team of international scientists has finally figured out why sunspots have a dramatic effect on the weather. It shows the folly of fearing the SUV while dismissing that thermonuclear furnace in the sky.

Mankind once worshiped the sun. Now the world studiously ignores it as nations prepare to hammer out a successor to the failed Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, in Copenhagen in December. Something is indeed rotten in Denmark.

Our own government is committed to fighting climate change whether it be through Son of Kyoto or our own growth-capping, job-killing cap-and-trade legislation known as Waxman-Markey.

Despite the sun being the major source of all energy on earth, supporters of man-caused global warming have dismissed the sun's role in climate change. They say the historic 11-year solar cycle changes the amount of energy reaching the earth by about only 0.1% — not enough to account for temperature rises this century.

The Aug. 28 issue of the journal Science details how the scientific team led by the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR), using a century's worth of data and three powerful computer models, figured out just how small changes in solar activity can trigger great changes in earth's climate.

The study found that chemicals in the stratosphere and sea surface temperatures during solar maximums act in a way that amplifies the sun's influence. The slight increase in solar energy in the peak production of sunspots is absorbed by stratospheric ozone, warming the air in the tropics where sunlight is most intense.

The additional energy also helps produce more ozone that absorbs even more solar energy. The increased sunlight causes a slight warming of ocean surface waters across the subtropical Pacific.

This stratospheric energy absorption and sea surface warming can intensify winds and rainfall, and ultimately influence global weather in ways that amplify the sun's influence.

"The sun, the stratosphere and the oceans are connected in ways that can influence such events as winter rainfall in North America," says study author Gerald Meehl. "Understanding the role of the solar cycle can provide added insight as scientists work toward predicting regional weather patterns for the next couple of decades."

The world has significantly cooled in the last decade, a period that corresponds to a decline and virtual halt in sunspot activity. Solar activity is in a valley right now, the deepest of the past century. The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reports that in 2008 and 2009 the sun set Space Age records for low sunspot counts, weak solar wind and low solar radiance.

R. Timothy Patterson, professor of geology and director of the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Center of Canada's Carleton University, has said that "CO2 variations show little correlation with our planet's climate on long-, medium- and even short-time scales."

Rather, he says, "I and the first-class scientists I work with are consistently finding excellent correlations between the regular fluctuations of the sun and earthly climate. This is not surprising. The sun and the stars are the ultimate source of energy on this planet."

A Hoover Institution Study a few years back examined historical data and came to a similar conclusion. "The effects of solar activity and volcanoes are impossible to miss. Temperatures fluctuated exactly as expected, and the pattern was so clear that, statistically, the odds of the correlation existing by chance were less than one in 100," according to Hoover fellow Bruce Berkowitz.

Current solar inactivity is similar to what scientists call the Maunder Minimum, a period of solar inactivity from 1645 to 1715 that spawned what is known as the Little Ice Age. At Christmas, Londoners could ice skate on the frozen Thames and New Yorkers could walk over the Hudson from Manhattan to Staten Island.

The NCAR study shows how complicated atmospheric and climate science really is and how many variables must be factored in to have even a basic understanding of all the components that make up and influence earth's climate before the world commits economic suicide.

Sorry, but the tone alone of this article leads it to be suspect. It is hardly written in an objective manner. "Son of Kyoto" and "economic suicide" are not terms used by an impartial writer.

I do not doubt the basic premise that sunspots can have an effect on the earth's climate.  That makes sense.  And despite the lack of modern observational methods, the basis for the Maunder Minimum is most likely a valid trend and this does at least partly coincide with the Little Ice Age, so a rational person could easily make the connection.

However, that does not prove that man has no effect on the climate.  That logic is the same as saying since heart disease is the major killer of western men, then nothing else has any impact, and we shouldn't waste money and resources fighting cancer.  The two are not related, but both contribute to the same end.

And this continual harping on supposed economic problems if efforts to combat global warming are really, really ridiculous.  Of course, there are some suggestions for combating global warming which could in fact have a negative impact on the economy.  Those suggestions need to be weighed to see if any negative impact on the economy would have positive impacts in other areas which would outweigh the negative.  But the fact of the matter is that extreme suggestions do not have to be adopted, and most of the suggestions to date will most likely have very positive effects on the economy. 

Do you want to see a real economic suicide? How about a rise in the sea level of 18 inches. Or increased hurricanes. Or drought in the grain belts. Forget global warming. How about peak oil? The same steps advocated for combating global warming will put off peak oil further into the future.

[teatree]

Arctic ice proves to be slippery stuff

Telegraph.co.uk

BBC viewers were treated last week to the bizarre spectacle of Mr Ban

Ki-moon standing on an Arctic ice-floe making a series of statements so laughable that it was hard to believe such a man can be Secretary-General of the UN. Thanks to global warming, he claimed, "100 billion tons" of polar ice are melting each year, so that within 30 years the Arctic could be "ice-free". This was supported by a WWF claim that the ice is melting so fast that, by 2100, sea-levels could rise by 1.2 metres (four feet), which would lead to "floods affecting a quarter of the world".

Everything about this oft-repeated item was propaganda of the silliest kind. Standing 700 miles from the Pole, as near as the stubbornly present ice would allow his ship to go, Mr Ban seemed unaware that, although some 10 million square kilometres (3.8 million square miles) of sea-ice melts each summer, each September the Arctic starts to freeze again. And the extent of the ice now is 500,000 sq km (190,000 sq m) greater than it was this time last year – which was, in turn, 500,000 sq km more than in September 2007, the lowest point recently recorded (see the Cryosphere Today website). By April, after months of darkness, it will be back up to 14 million sq km (5.4 million sq m) or more.

Mr Ban seems equally unaware that, even if all that sea-ice were to melt, this would no more raise sea-levels than a cube of ice melting in a gin and tonic increases the volume of liquid in the glass. If he is relying for his "100 billion tons" on land ice melting in Antarctica and Greenland, he should note that much of their ice sheets are growing rather than shrinking. His "100 billion tons" is fantasy.

Similarly worthy of the Booker Prize for fiction was WWF's claim that sea levels might rise by four feet (twice the most extreme guess by those UN computer models), let alone the ludicrous claim that this would flood "a quarter of the world". But Mr Ban was indulging in this childish publicity stunt for the same reason the BBC, the Royal Society and others have lately been banging on about various mad schemes for "climate engineering", such as putting up vast mirrors in space to keep out the sun's rays or lining our motorways with artificial trees to suck deadly CO2 out of the air, to be taken away and buried in holes in the ground.

Why are they all going off their heads like this, in emulation of the "projector" that Gulliver met on his travels, in the Academy of Lagado, who had designed a scheme for extracting sunbeams from cucumbers? It is because they are desperately trying to whip up alarm over global warming before December's planned "climate treaty" in Copenhagen, when all evidence suggests that they are not going to get the successor to the Kyoto Protocol they want.

The countries of the developing world, led by China, India, Russia and Brazil, continue to insist that, since global warming is all the fault of the already developed countries of the West, it is up to the West to cut its CO2 emissions by 80 per cent, while the rest of the world is allowed to catch up. Some, such as China, are prepared to make token emission cuts, but only so long as they are compensated by the West to the tune of trillions of pounds a year. As some of the gloomier warmists admit, Copenhagen looks to be a dead duck.

According to Government figures, however, we in Britain are already committed to spending, under the Climate Change Act, £18 billion every year between now and 2050 on this nonsense – daft light bulbs (see below), electricity blackouts and all. In other words, we are only beginning to see some of the nastier consequences of this crazy make-believe, based on nothing more substantial than the kind of gibberish we got last week from Mr "Light Bulb" Ban and the BBC.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columni...pery-stuff.html

[bonobo]

OK, Mr. Ban was rather confused here. On the other hand, how does Mr. Booker know what will be the case in April of 2010?  Does he have a personal conduit to the future of the the size of the polar ice?

I would have hoped that Mr. Ban could have had some better preparation, if for no other reason than from my un-scientific observations, those who adamantly decry global warming seem to take any exaggerated  or mistaken claim from someone on the other side of the issue as proof that global warming does not exist.

A rise in sea level by 4 feet, while possible, is in the upper ends of current estimates, and it would not affect 25 % of the land mass.  However, and I would have to go back and look this up, it might very well affect 25% of the world's population.  Mr. Booker scoffs at this and says this is double what the UN computer models predict.  So what if it is "only" 2 feet. Does he not think this will have a significant effect on the world?  Do you think Bangkok, for example, can easily cope with a 2-foot rise in sea levels? 

[JR Texas]

OK, Mr. Ban was rather confused here. On the other hand, how does Mr. Booker know what will be the case in April of 2010?  Does he have a personal conduit to the future of the the size of the polar ice?

I would have hoped that Mr. Ban could have had some better preparation, if for no other reason than from my un-scientific observations, those who adamantly decry global warming seem to take any exaggerated  or mistaken claim from someone on the other side of the issue as proof that global warming does not exist.

A rise in sea level by 4 feet, while possible, is in the upper ends of current estimates, and it would not affect 25 % of the land mass.  However, and I would have to go back and look this up, it might very well affect 25% of the world's population.  Mr. Booker scoffs at this and says this is double what the UN computer models predict.  So what if it is "only" 2 feet. Does he not think this will have a significant effect on the world?  Do you think Bangkok, for example, can easily cope with a 2-foot rise in sea levels? 

Good post Bonobo........in addition to rising sea levels, one thing they seem to be overlooking is the relationship between ice reduction and the global underwater heat exchange system.

Ice is white.........it reflects solar radiation back into space. When it goes away the radiation is absorbed (causing warming).

Melting ice also releases fresh water, causing salt water to be less saline.

Both can cause the heat exchange current system (world's ocean circulation system) to be disrupted, causing major climate change.

And if they really believe rising sea levels are not a problem, they really should talk with people living in small island nations in the Pacific and ask them if they are losing land mass to the ocean.

[Rionoir]

Yes! Ice is white! Why didn't anyone point that out sooner, I totally would've been on board...

[JR Texas]

Yes! Ice is white! Why didn't anyone point that out sooner, I totally would've been on board...

Obviously you did not understand the significance of what I just pointed out. When you look at the planet from a distance, you see huge areas of "white" in the form of glaciers, snowfalls in the winter months, and polar ice. They play a critical role in reflecting radiation back into space (thus reducing warming) and regulating weather patterns. Remove them (i.e., let them melt) and you cause more radiation to be absorbed and endanger the critical "heat pump" in the oceans.

If that "pump" falters, you could cause another mini-Ice Age in Europe. Of course, that would be insignificant to you........just wear warmer clothing, right? The fact is nobody knows for sure all that will happen if the heat pump in the ocean falters.......something really catastrophic could materialize. And that is one of the most dangerous things about your position: We don't know for sure what will happen.

If the abrupt materialization of the ozone hole did not cause the alarm bells to go off in the minds of you and other so-called skeptics, I don't know what will. You are playing a very dangerous game...........and there is no need to play it.

As Bonobo has pointed out over and over again, if you are right, we must accelerate our efforts to stop global climate change. If you are wrong, we must accelerate out efforts to stop global climate change.

[Rionoir]

You know, BIG OIL could change the color of the ice...

PS - "abrupt materialization of the ozone hole" ? It was abruptly discovered... but no one KNOWS how long it took to materialize, and know one knows how long that hole was there.

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

[JR Texas]

You know, BIG OIL could change the color of the ice...

PS - "abrupt materialization of the ozone hole" ? It was abruptly discovered... but no one KNOWS how long it took to materialize, and know one knows how long that hole was there.

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

Your first point totally ignored the importance of "white ice" in maintaining the climates equilibrium....one could call your response silly.

Your second point totally avoids the science explaining the ozone hole.......one could call your response silly.

Your third point states what we already know and avoids the science explaining global climate change.......again, one could call your response silly.

If that is the best you people can do, it really is time for you to stop posting..........in all of your seemingly endless silly posts, none of you have posted one "fact" that detracts from what we already know: Environmentally unsound human activities--much of it related to BIG OIL--is causing climate change and threatening both present and future generations.

[bonobo]

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

So if another ice age is coming, should we just enjoy the beach today and worry about putting on an extra-heavy coat tomorrow?

We already modify nature now.  We put up dams and re-route rivers, for example.  So why shouldn't we try and develop technologies which would mitigate any extreme shifts in climate patterns?

If the Gulf Stream is shut down by global warming and Europe goes into a freeze, is there a way to kick-start it back up again?  One idea is to dump about half the world's annual consumption of salt into the ocean at what is now the northern-most reach of the stream.  Will that work?  I don't know.  BUt at least people are trying to come up with some solutions now.  

[chuckd]

I think the UN and all countries in the world should require all their citizens to wear white only.

Can you imagine the effect this would have in reflecting the sun's rays back into the trophosphere, or whever they are coming from? It would probably be much more cost effective than wind turbines and wouldn't take up all that land needed for the turbines.

Actually it wouldn't take up any more land but I guess that's beside the point.

Al Gore has just opened a cotton fabric factory selling only white cotton. Anybody want to invest?

[Rionoir]

....one could call your response silly.

Your second point totally avoids the science explaining the ozone hole.......one could call your response silly.

You really think so?  You don't think I was serious about dumping oil on ice?  I can't tell if ur dumb or just have absolutely no sense of humor. LoL

And my second point doesn't avoid anything... you MADE UP facts about the ozone hole by saying that it "abruptly materialized"... I am simply pointing out that there is NO PROOF that says that hole hasn't been there forever... the hole was discovered, but it's not like anyone was monitoring for holes before they found that.  Therefore, there is no 'science' to present about it.  And I haven't heard of the discovery of any additional holes.  So there is no science behind it... some scientist found a hole, and they have no idea where it came from.  Except people like you will isntantly ASSUME and want to take it as FACT that that hole is caused by pollution or global warming or whatever the condition of the day is.

[Rionoir]

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

So if another ice age is coming, should we just enjoy the beach today and worry about putting on an extra-heavy coat tomorrow?

We already modify nature now.  We put up dams and re-route rivers, for example.  So why shouldn't we try and develop technologies which would mitigate any extreme shifts in climate patterns?

If the Gulf Stream is shut down by global warming and Europe goes into a freeze, is there a way to kick-start it back up again?  One idea is to dump about half the world's annual consumption of salt into the ocean at what is now the northern-most reach of the stream.  Will that work?  I don't know.  BUt at least people are trying to come up with some solutions now.  

Yea, that's pretty much my philosophy.

But look... If scientists want to try to slow down the natural cycle of this planet, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with being told that humans are causing all of this.  Actually, we only have advanced weather data going back what, 100 years?  That is virtually NO data in terms of knowing what the cycle of surface temperatures and ocean currents and ocean temperatures, etc.  We know nothing about what is "normal" with these things... all we know is what has happened in the last blink of an eye of this planet's history.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  And yea, look at Al Gore's life... he probably has a bigger carbon footprint than most people on the planet, but... oh, we should just ignore that and take him seriously anyway right.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

[JR Texas]

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

So if another ice age is coming, should we just enjoy the beach today and worry about putting on an extra-heavy coat tomorrow?

We already modify nature now.  We put up dams and re-route rivers, for example.  So why shouldn't we try and develop technologies which would mitigate any extreme shifts in climate patterns?

If the Gulf Stream is shut down by global warming and Europe goes into a freeze, is there a way to kick-start it back up again?  One idea is to dump about half the world's annual consumption of salt into the ocean at what is now the northern-most reach of the stream.  Will that work?  I don't know.  BUt at least people are trying to come up with some solutions now.  

Yea, that's pretty much my philosophy.

But look... If scientists want to try to slow down the natural cycle of this planet, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with being told that humans are causing all of this.  Actually, we only have advanced weather data going back what, 100 years?  That is virtually NO data in terms of knowing what the cycle of surface temperatures and ocean currents and ocean temperatures, etc.  We know nothing about what is "normal" with these things... all we know is what has happened in the last blink of an eye of this planet's history.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  And yea, look at Al Gore's life... he probably has a bigger carbon footprint than most people on the planet, but... oh, we should just ignore that and take him seriously anyway right.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

Actually, humans have nothing to do with it.............it is the result of Martians farting..........really!

Now, if that sounds wacko, it is because it is in line with your reasoning.

[bonobo]

But look... If scientists want to try to slow down the natural cycle of this planet, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with being told that humans are causing all of this.  Actually, we only have advanced weather data going back what, 100 years?  That is virtually NO data in terms of knowing what the cycle of surface temperatures and ocean currents and ocean temperatures, etc.  We know nothing about what is "normal" with these things... all we know is what has happened in the last blink of an eye of this planet's history.

Actually, we can tell quite a bit beyond the last 100 years by looking at the effects of various climatic changes.  Looking at growth rings, coral reefs, ice cores, and the like can be a pretty good indication of what was going on weather-wise in the past.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  

Here, you are 100% right.  Ethanol, except for in Brazil, uses more oil to produce the ethanol with which it is trying to replace. Even in Brazil, the "oil savings" is minimal and has caused huge tracts of rainforest and the Pantanal to be plowed under. Ethanol is largely a political pork barrel to keep powerful agricultural interest happy.

But just because one so-called solution to oil dependency is faulty does not mean that global warming is a farce.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

I may not see Bangkok under water, but if I have kids, they may see it.  And when faced with huge climatic pattern shifts which would destroy much of the fertile regions of the world, change the availability of water, and put quite a bit of land below sea level, then yes, I might be willing to try drastic actions.  But many of the actions are not drastic.  Do you really think that shifting from SUV's and pick-up trucks for city driving to smaller, fuel-efficient cars will have dramatic unforeseen negative consequences?  That offshore windmills will?  That more efficient, cleaner-burning cola plants will?  

Sorry, as I have written before, I just don't see the downside, global warming or not.

[teatree]

Here's what its mostly about - the public being shaken down for even more money:

France set to impose carbon tax

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8248392.stm

Expect a lot more of this in the future, but don't expect any feasible alternative energy sources, no, just TAX and lots of it.

[Rionoir]

And I can almost guarantee there's going to be another ice age... but the ice ages coming and going started way before man was on this planet. But , meh, that's just silly facts again...

So if another ice age is coming, should we just enjoy the beach today and worry about putting on an extra-heavy coat tomorrow?

We already modify nature now.  We put up dams and re-route rivers, for example.  So why shouldn't we try and develop technologies which would mitigate any extreme shifts in climate patterns?

If the Gulf Stream is shut down by global warming and Europe goes into a freeze, is there a way to kick-start it back up again?  One idea is to dump about half the world's annual consumption of salt into the ocean at what is now the northern-most reach of the stream.  Will that work?  I don't know.  BUt at least people are trying to come up with some solutions now.  

Yea, that's pretty much my philosophy.

But look... If scientists want to try to slow down the natural cycle of this planet, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with being told that humans are causing all of this.  Actually, we only have advanced weather data going back what, 100 years?  That is virtually NO data in terms of knowing what the cycle of surface temperatures and ocean currents and ocean temperatures, etc.  We know nothing about what is "normal" with these things... all we know is what has happened in the last blink of an eye of this planet's history.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  And yea, look at Al Gore's life... he probably has a bigger carbon footprint than most people on the planet, but... oh, we should just ignore that and take him seriously anyway right.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

Actually, humans have nothing to do with it.............it is the result of Martians farting..........really!

Now, if that sounds wacko, it is because it is in line with your reasoning.

If you say so... I guess you ran out of comments concerning Big Oil?

[Rionoir]

But look... If scientists want to try to slow down the natural cycle of this planet, I have no problem with that.  My problem is with being told that humans are causing all of this.  Actually, we only have advanced weather data going back what, 100 years?  That is virtually NO data in terms of knowing what the cycle of surface temperatures and ocean currents and ocean temperatures, etc.  We know nothing about what is "normal" with these things... all we know is what has happened in the last blink of an eye of this planet's history.

Actually, we can tell quite a bit beyond the last 100 years by looking at the effects of various climatic changes.  Looking at growth rings, coral reefs, ice cores, and the like can be a pretty good indication of what was going on weather-wise in the past.

Additionally, many of the things that conservationists like Al Gore are telling us to do have just as big of impact on the environment... Ethenol fuel, for example.  It may burn cleaner, but once you factor in the production of ethenol... the "carbon footprint" is at least as big as regular fuel in the end.  

Here, you are 100% right.  Ethanol, except for in Brazil, uses more oil to produce the ethanol with which it is trying to replace. Even in Brazil, the "oil savings" is minimal and has caused huge tracts of rainforest and the Pantanal to be plowed under. Ethanol is largely a political pork barrel to keep powerful agricultural interest happy.

But just because one so-called solution to oil dependency is faulty does not mean that global warming is a farce.

Furthermore, don't you think that trying to change the course of nature could cause some seriously devastating and unforseen consequences?  No one knows.  Is it a risk we should take?  I don't really care honestly, I'll be dead before the consequences hit I'm sure. LoL  I think we are worrying about things we can't control though.  It's humane nature, but... it's silly too.

I may not see Bangkok under water, but if I have kids, they may see it.  And when faced with huge climatic pattern shifts which would destroy much of the fertile regions of the world, change the availability of water, and put quite a bit of land below sea level, then yes, I might be willing to try drastic actions.  But many of the actions are not drastic.  Do you really think that shifting from SUV's and pick-up trucks for city driving to smaller, fuel-efficient cars will have dramatic unforeseen negative consequences?  That offshore windmills will?  That more efficient, cleaner-burning cola plants will?  

Sorry, as I have written before, I just don't see the downside, global warming or not.

I've never said I have a problem with people trying to do things that they feel are better for the environment.  Unfortunately the bulk of what we see is just the government finding ways to get money out of people polluting, or doing things in ways which they claim is cleaner, but isn't.  Those little hybrid cars everyone is in love with... using up a very rare natural resource... did they ever tell u that in the brochure?  No.  Neither do the liberal hippies that are always telling us how great hybrid cars are.

If someone makes a new type of fuel, that is ACTUALLY cleaner and not just a big scam, I don't think anyone will have a problem using it.  The oil in the planet will run out eventually, so we certainly do need some alternatives at some point whether or not we are trying to save the environment.

One of the downsides, "global warming or not", is that democrats don't care about ruining businesses and the economy of our country with completely random feel-good policies regarding the environment.  Ethanol is just one example, cap and trade is another looming example.  Wind farms?  They're ugly as shit - I drove up to the northern part of Wisconsin a couple weeks ago and I saw one city where all the farm fields had huge white wind mills alllllll over.  God, talk about ruining the environment!  Off-shore... sure, why not.  But I swear to God, they need to keep them off of the countryside... particularlly when they are right off of the country highways... they are a freaking eyesore.

Doesn't it seem like most of the proposals and policies are just things that people feel good about themselves for passing but aren't ever going to have any type of impact?  Let's say humans are causing 1% of the global warming effect... and of that 1%, all these policies are effecting what, 10% or less of that?  We're never going to eliminate all man-made effects into the environment... so, at best, what, we can effect 0.25% of the entire problem someday?  What is that going to accomplish?  Is that worth dramatically changing our lives?  I dunno, I don't see it.

If democrats want to do this, they need to get some politicians in office that actually care about the environment and not just about ways to raise taxes in the name of the environment.

[teatree]

Svensmark: “global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning” – “enjoy global warming while it lasts”

HENRIK SVENSMARK, Professor, DTU, Copenhagen

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary. This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable, writes Henrik Svensmark.

The star which keeps us alive, has over the last few years almost no sunspots, which are the usual signs of the sun’s magnetic activity.

Last week, reported the scientific team behind Sohosatellitten (Solar and Heliospheric Observatory) that the number of sunspot-free days suggest that solar activity is heading towards its lowest level in about 100 years’. Everything indicates that the Sun is moving into a hibernation-like state, and the obvious question is whether it has any significance for us on Earth.

If you ask the International Panel on Climate Change IPCC, representing the current consensus on climate change, so the answer is a reassuring ‘nothing’. But history and recent research suggests that it is probably completely wrong. Let us take a closer look at why.

Solar activity has always varied. Around the year 1000, we had a period of very high solar activity, which coincided with the medieval warmth. It was a period when frosts in May was an almost unknown phenomenon and of great importance for a good harvest. Vikings settled in Greenland and explored the coast of North America. For example, China’s population doubled over this period. But after about 1300, the earth began to get colder and it was the beginning of the period we now call the Little Ice Age. In this cold period all the Viking settlements in Greenland disappeared. Swedes [were surprised to see Denmark to freeze over in ice], and the Thames in London froze repeatedly. But more serious was the long periods of crop failure, which resulted in a poorly nourished population, because of disease and hunger [population was reduced] by about 30 per cent in Europe.

It is important to note that the Little Ice Age was a global event. It ended in the late 19th century and was followed by an increase in solar activity. Over the past 50 years solar activity has been the highest since the medieval warmth for 1,000 years ago. And now it appears that the sun returns and is heading towards what is called ‘a grand minimum’ as we saw in the Little Ice Age.

The coincidence between solar activity and climate through the ages have tried explained away as coincidence. But it turns out that almost no matter what time studying, not just the last 1000 years, so there is a line. Solar activity has repeatedly over the past 10,000 years has fluctuated between high and low. Actually, the sun over the past 10,000 years spent in a sleep mode, approx. 17 pct of the time, with a cooling of the Earth to follow.

One can wonder that the international climate panel IPCC does not believe that the sun changed activity has no effect on the climate, but the reason is that they only include changes in solar radiation.

Just radiation would be the simplest way by which the sun could change the climate. A bit like turning up and down the brightness of a light bulb.

Satellite measurements of solar radiation has been shown that the variations are too small to cause climate change, but so has closed his eyes for a second much more powerful way the sun is able to affect Earth’s climate. In 1996 we discovered a surprising influence of the sun – its impact on Earth’s cloud cover. High energy accelerated particles of exploded stars, the cosmic radiation, are helping to form clouds.

When the Sun is active its magnetic field shields better against the cosmic rays from outer space before they reach our planet, and by regulating the Earth’s cloud cover the sun can turn up and down the temperature. High solar activity obtained fewer clouds and the earth is getting warmer. Low solar activity inferior shields against cosmic radiation, and it results in increased cloud cover and hence a cooling. As the sun’s magnetism has doubled its strength during the 20th century, this natural mechanism may be responsible for a large part of global warming during this period.

This also explains why most climate scientists are trying to ignore this possibility. It does in fact favor the idea that the 20th century temperature rise is mainly due to human emissions of CO2. If the sun as has influenced a significant part of warming in the 20 century, it means that CO2’s contribution must necessarily be smaller.

Ever since our theory was put forward in 1996, it has been through a very sharp criticism, which is normal in science.

First it was said that a link between clouds and solar activity could not be correct because no physical mechanism was known. But in 2006 after many years of work we managed to conduct experiments at DTU Space, where we demonstrated the existence of a physical mechanism. The cosmic radiation helps to form aerosols, which are the seeds for cloud formation.

Then came the criticism that the mechanism we have found in the laboratory was unable to survive in the real atmosphere and therefore had no practical significance. But the criticism we have just emphatically rejected. It turns out that the sun itself is doing, what we might call natural experiments. Giant solar flares can have the cosmic radiation on earth to dive suddenly over a few days. In the days after the eruption cloud cover falls by about 4 per cent. And the content of liquid water in clouds (droplets) is reduced by almost 7 per cent. Indeed, [you could say] that the clouds on Earth originated in space.

Therefore we have looked at the sun’s magnetic activity with increasing concern, since it began to wane in the mid-1990s.

That the sun could fall asleep in a deep minimum was suggested by [solar scientists] at a meeting in Kiruna in Sweden two years ago. As Nigel Calder and I updated our book “The Chilling Stars” therefore, we wrote a little provocative [passage] “we recommend our friends to enjoy global warming while it lasts.”

Indeed, global warming stopped and a cooling is beginning. Last week, it was argued by Mojib Latif from the University of Kiel at the UN World Climate Conference in Geneva that cooling may continue through the next 10 to 20 years.

His explanation was natural changes in North Atlantic circulation and not in solar activity. But no matter how it is interpreted, the natural variations in climate then penetrates more and more.

One consequence may be that the sun itself will show its importance for climate and thus to test the theories of global warming. No climate model has predicted a cooling of the Earth, on the contrary.

This means that projections of future climate is unpredictable. A forecast [that] says it may be warmer or colder for 50 years, is not very useful, for science is not able to predict solar activity.

So in many ways, we stand at a crossroads. The near future will be extremely interesting and I think it is important to recognize that nature is completely independent of what we humans think about it. Will Greenhouse theory survive a significant cooling of the Earth? Not in its current dominant form. Unfortunately, tomorrow’s climate challenges will be quite different than greenhouse theory’s predictions, and perhaps it becomes again popular to investigate the sun’s impact on climate.

Professor Henrik Svensmark is director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at DTU Space. His book “The Chilling Stars” has also been published in Danish as “Climate and the Cosmos” (Gads Forlag, DK ISBN 9788712043508)

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/10/sven...while-it-lasts/

[JR Texas]

If democrats want to do this, they need to get some politicians in office that actually care about the environment and not just about ways to raise taxes in the name of the environment.

They did.........but the Republicans and the conservative Supreme Court stole the election from Al Gore.

By the way, a point that the skeptics keep ignoring.........we are already being taxed big time--directly and indirectly--because of our allegiance to BIG OIL.