Global Warming
 

For those of us with friends or acquaintances who think those of us who believe in global warming are just tree-huggers here's something to ponder, and perhaps mention to them.

Australia heat wave: New color added to weather maps, fire danger "catastrophic."

Edit:
Actually it may not do much good to mention this to the unscientific crowd. Usually the response will be, "I sure wish we could get a little of that heat up north here. It's been dang cold here lately". To me that's the same as a person saying, "I sure wish we could get some of that daylight here in the western hemisphere. It's been dang dark here the last 12 hours." You can lead a jackass to water but you can't make them drink.

Wow, that's amazing. I lived in south Texas as a kid and 100 deg F wasn't uncommon.
But, when it went over 105 it was time to stay in the creek.
I can't even imagine walking around when it was in the 120s..
That would kill most people who live up here in the NE..


It's been so cold this week, I was dreaming of some global warming.
But, When I checked my local data for January, it's not really all that cold this time..

Ave local temp in Jan

2005 24.1 F
2006 33.7
2007 30.7
2008 29.5
2009 22.2
2010 26.9
2011 23.5
2012 31.5
2013 29.3 (so far). Edit 2/14/2013: Just checked it and it's 29.7 °F this January..

Shows an overall (since 2005) average of 27.93 deg F, so this month could have been even colder!

Amazing thing is that people buy into this Global warming money grab scam.

Truth is we are at the end of a ice age.
Hang tight the next Ice Age starts when this one finishes.
Expect weather changes.

They have come up with the proper terminology for the Change. Climate change.

Based on your thinking on fridge pcm's I'm not surprised that this is what your common sense would be telling you. Unexamined assumptions can be very destructive and wasteful, Ecomodded.

Yikes Exeric, lets stop this assumption making of yours and try to co-operate on this website. I have no time for childish remarks. I am out of here.. for a while.

I perhaps went over the line assuming your thinking on global warming correlated with your thinking on fridge pcm's. I apologize. But I think of global warming as something like a global version of second hand smoke. Back in the day people who complained about second hand smoke were thought of as troublemakers. As more evidence came in it was realized there was a real risk to non-smokers from second hand smoke. It also turns out that the biggest critics of the new paradigm of the danger of second hand smoke were, (surprise) smokers.

I think that even though it may be controversial to talk about global warming, we (as non-smokers, so to speak) have a right to speak up. There is real scientific evidence that it is man-made and not something that is correlated with natural cycles. It is going to hurt all of us, not just the people who are economically helped by the CO^2 polluters.

Really, there is no excuse for the rest of us to go along with such lazy thinking as yours on this subject. That is because that lazy thinking hurts all of us. And just like smokers' denial of second hand smoke dangers, it largely eminates from purely selfish reasons. It needs to be called out.

one man's observations on climate
 

Here is just one person's personal observations on rapid climate change - all of it in the last 60 years.

As a kid, I grew up (50's 60's) in Westborough MA, just SW of Woburn (home of xringer). We did not know about wind chill, but I do know that there were many weeks when it did not go above freezing. It was not unusual to go a week (or more) without it going above zero. I knew this as we kept livestock and we had to hand carry water buckets morning/night to water them when the pipe to the barn froze (buried 6 feet down). Cows drink a lot of damn water . . .

The frost line in central Massachusetts back then went down 6-7 feet - now frost rarely goes down 1/2 of that (or less).

When was the last time it was below zero for a week in Boston/Worcester? It is now a big deal if it stays below freezing for a week!

There were no Cardinals nor Robins throughout the winter despite my mother putting out lots of bird seed (Chicakadees, lots of 'em back then). Now both the former are year round residents of New England.

We regularly went skating on the town ponds at about Thanksgiving and we played hockey on same until mid March. I know that as we would have a Thanksgiving bonfire on the lake, would roast chickens and eat fire baked potatos.

Ice fishing was a chore as you had to chop through 12-18 inches of ice. Now you don't dare venture on lakes in central Massachusetts until January - and then at your risk of falling through.

My wife's family was in Island Pond VT (Northeast Kingdom area) for generations where ice in and ice out dates of major lakes have been kept for 200+ years.

They used the lakes for ice cutting (for icehouse and for homes in the cities before mechanical refridgeration). Up to the early 70's ice in on the lakes was late October +/- one week. Ice out was in mid April +/- 1 week. Many people literally banked on those dates as many were employed by ice houses. Now all that has changed by a month at each end. I have seen the posted dates of ice in and out in the family records going back for literally generations. You too can look those dates up in town records.

I used to go to school the first week (just after Labor Day) and we would collect pretty leaves and do the waxed paper thing that first week. Now the leaves change in mid October in Westborough.

All the above simply says there has been climate change - and yes, this has happened hundreds (thousands?) of times in geological history. But it does NOT happen in one human generation.

Situations similar to the recent change normally take many hundreds to thousands of years with the exceptions of large volcanic issues (eg year without a summer, 1830's)

Yet in Europe, right now they are freezing. It takes only a subtle shift of the Gulf Stream to move quadrillions of BTUs to the south - and this is what is being observed. And the summers have been incredibly hot and dry there as well.

The "infamous" Northwest Passge, searched for since Henry Hudson's time, is now open in the Arctic with the lowest thickness of sea ice ever see. How do we know? The first nuclear submarine, the Nautilus, made a trip under the north pole in 1959 and accurately measured sea ice thickness. My uncle was on that historic sub trip and there were times when the ice was so thick that they almost didn't make it between ice bottom and ocean bottom. They measured this to hide from Soviet subs that were non-nuclear. The US Navy has a LOT of data on ice thickness (now ice thinness or open water).

Now, on that same exact route, 80% of the 1959 sub trip is open water . . .

I can literally go on and on with more data personally seen in my lifetime, but you get the message.

And . . . . at the same time as this, there has been a huge increase in man made gasses well known and clearly documented to cause changes in atmospheric heat retention.

No I have not personally measured that change, but I have taught courses where I have had to literally change lectures due to the almost 50% increase in atmospheric CO2 (in my teaching "lifetime").

I know well that association is not causation, but as a scientist with a doctorate and then post doctorate fellowships, I have spent a lot of time studying this. I call what we are seeing is the following:

rapid, human induced, global climate change

You may disagree and have opinions, but opinions are not facts. I too don't appreciate lazy thinking just as I hate seeing a poorly done brazing job done by a person who thinks (tells all) that he/she is good at it . . .


Respectfully,

Steve

I hate misinformation.
I do understand the posters here mean well, they do not know the role they are playing
spreading this misinformation. They should get paid, like Al Gore.

650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations
Filed under:

Arctic and Antarctic
Climate Science
Greenhouse gases
Paleoclimate

— gavin @ 24 November 2005 - (Français)

The latest results from the EPICA core in Antarctica have just been published this week in Science (Siegenthaler et al. and Spahni et al.). This ice core extended the record of Antarctic climate back to maybe 800,000 years, and the first 650,000 years of ice have now been analysed for greenhouse gas concentrations saved in tiny bubbles. The records for CO2, CH4 and N2O both confirm the Vostok records that have been available for a few years now, and extend them over another 4 glacial-interglacial cycles. This is a landmark result and a strong testament to the almost heroic efforts in the field to bring back these samples from over 3km deep in the Antarctica ice. So what do these new data tell us, and where might they lead?

Composite CO2: Click to enlargeFirst of all, the results demonstrate clearly that the relationship between climate and CO2 that had been deduced from the Vostok core appears remarkably robust. This is despite a significant change in the patterns of glacial-interglacial changes prior to 400,000 years ago. The ‘EPICA challenge’ was laid down a few months ago for people working on carbon cycle models to predict whether this would be the case, and mostly the predictions were right on the mark. (Who says climate predictions can’t be verified?). It should also go almost without saying that lingering doubts about the reproducibility of the ice core gas records should now be completely dispelled. That a number of different labs, looking at ice from different locations, extracted with different methods all give very similar answers, is a powerful indication that what they are measuring is real. Where there are problems (for instance in N2O in very dusty ice), those problems are clearly found and that data discarded.

Secondly, these results will allow paleoclimatologists to really look in detail at the differences between the different interglacials in the past. The previous 3 before our current era look quite similar to each other and were quite short (around 10,000 years). The one 400,000 years ago (Marine Isotope Stage 11, for those who count that way) was hypotheisied to look more like the Holocene and appears to be significantly longer (around 30,000 years). Many of the details though weren’t completely clear in the Vostok data, but should now be much better resolved. This may help address some of the ideas put forward by Ruddiman (2003, 2005), and also help assess how long our current warm period is likely to last.

More generally, since the extra interglacials that are now resolved have very different characteristics from the previous ones, they may allow us to test climate theories and models over a whole new suite of test cases. To quote Richard Alley “Whether you’re a physicist, a chemist, a biologist, a geologist, or any other “ist” studying the Earth system, there is something in these data that confirms much of your understanding of the planet and then challenges some piece of your understanding”. It’s all very exciting (for us ‘ists’ at least!).

RealClimate: 650,000 years of greenhouse gas concentrations

results for CO2, CH4, and the isotopes:

Hi Ecomodded,

The measure of the quality of ones reason lies not just in analyzing data but in being able to separate the wheat from the chaff in that data. You are not doing that. The scientists that have reasoned from the data that our current warming is caused by human induced CO2 have never said that other "natural" global warming cycles haven't also been caused by CO2. The difference is that the CO2 increases in previous cycles took millenia to come to full effect. Ours is occuring within a generation or two. You are confusing the acceptance of CO2 being a common cause in natural warming cycles with the rapid and historic change in CO2 in the atmospere caused by the latter stages of the industrial revolution.

I hope this doesn't sound condescending, because I don't mean it that way. Taking a critical thinking course at your local community college might be very useful to you. You too often let your emotions get in front of your reasoning ability, just as you did in letting your beliefs influence you in analyzing your results for PCMs in refrigerators. If several of us hadn't disagreed with you there is every possibility you would still think you had been correct.

It isn't our job to keep correcting you, but I always feel that if no one else speaks up others will believe you because they might not know better. That's the only reason I argue with you. If you told me the things you do in private I would just let you think what you want to think and would not argue. I personally resent that you are such a constant sinkhole of bad info that I'm forced spend so much energy in order that others will not be deceived. I'm sure some other people might feel the same. The motto of Physicians is "In all cases do no harm". You are causing harm here with your faulty analyses.

Ice at the North Pole in 1958 and 1959 – not so thick | Watts Up With That?

It kinda looks like the ice up there, comes and goes..

Xringer,

Arctic ice does indeed come and go - that is the truth, but the thinning of the Arctic ice cap is not a fallacy.

Guys, if you want to promote fallacies then believe that you can make energy for your car from water, that putting a magnet on your fuel line will increase your car milage by 25% and that a 1 kW wind turbine will supply all your home energy needs.

We know, because we are here, of the laws of physics, engineering and of rational thought. Let's not discard our brains as we think of other arenas.

We are all experiencing the "law of the commons", you may have opinions, but opinions are not facts.

respectfully,

Steve

Putting a magnet on my fuel line worked! It's getting over 60 MPG now!!
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...V/P1000695.jpg

Of course, it's a very small car.. :o
http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f1...Untitled-1.jpg

My big logical question is, why did the dead sea scrolls die 2000 years ago? And how did they get all that writing on them before they died? I think they may have died from natural climate change, poor dears.

The planet is increasing its co2 right on schedule as the Graphs I posted denote and you want to believe we did it in the last 50 years ? 100 years 200 years ? Ridiculous.
I do not believe it one iota , You do, who is being fooled ? You. Its obvious.

Check out this site for current percentages of CO2:

http://co2now.org/images/stories/dat...-noaa-esrl.pdf

Your high percentage of approx .3 is inaccurate. It is now almost .4 and is far, far beyond even the highest previous record for CO2 from the past 600,000 years. With the developing nations of China and India becoming developed nations it will only get worse this century unless something is done.

You can put your head in the sand and find an unreliable website to make you feel better, or you can see it as it really is even though it won't make you happy. That is the only way course changes ever happen.

belief statements
 

Here are some observations on "not believing". For many years I taught at a medical school and in particular respiratory physiology.

Every year (and I mean EVERY year), I would talk about the dangers of first and second hand smoke, lung pathophysiology, COPD and the aweful way it is to die:eek:.

Invariably, a medical student would chime up and boldly assert the following (a belief statement): my grandfather is 88 years old, has smoked two packs of cigarettes a day since WWII and he is still alive. If smoking is so bad, then why is he alive?"

The other medical students would be hooting as they love to tweak a professor and have very high opinions of their opinions:D.

I would listen, act like I was thinking (having heard the question every year) and say the following:

Your belief statement is true and is valid as it is first hand information not to be doubted. Your hypothesis is that smoking does not kill - is that right?"

The student would squirm, but I would continue . . .

"Let's do an experiment to address a similar question. I assert (hypothesis, belief statement) that jumping off a ten story building kills. So let's test this hypothesis and have this class of 150 jump off this ten story building.

After the experiment, I see one or two of you loudly proclaiming that indeed you CAN live after jumping off a ten story building - your leg is broken, but you are alive. You assert that the hypothesis is DEAD because you are alive!"

But the other 149 - 149 have no voice (literally) and cannot counter you - they are all dead.

The exception to the rule - is just that, an exception. It does not invalidate biology, the laws of physics, whatever.

Smoking kills and so does second hand smoke. I think (hope?) we all agree on that. But ~ 20 years ago, there was a panel of tobacco executives in FRONT of Congress that said no, smoking does not kill and literally used the medical student arguement (above) as "evidence".

Climate change today is in the same realm where well meaning people are trying to find out truth and sometimes simple essays seem logical when they deny links between CO2 and climate change.

Let's not jump off buildings in trying to "prove" a point:thumbup:.

Respectfully,

Steve

You failed to mention that the very techniques of dis-information that were used during the 'tobacco wars' are being used to deny the effects of climate change... even the same lobbying groups are being used.

But on a gentler note, this discussion hinges on what I have come to understand as "the durability of ignorance." It's a bit like religion, but without the any of the benefits.

I heard a very interesting statistic the other day... 55% of scientists self-identify as Democrats, while only about 6% self-identify as Republicans.

...what does that tell you?

-AC

ABSTRACT

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.

INTRODUCTION

In the last 20 years, public interest in climate phenomena has grown, especially since the UN-IPCC began its campaign warning of catastrophic climate changes ahead. At Biology Cabinet, we maintain that the changes that we have observed since 1985 have been natural and that human beings cannot delay or stop the advance of these changes, but can only adapt to them. In addition, we have shown that the changes that we observe at present are the result of natural cycles which have occurred many times before.



GRAPH ON CARBON DIOXIDE DURING GEOLOGICAL ERAS

In prehistoric times, during the Permian, in the Palaeozoic Era, for example, the concentration of Carbon Dioxide dropped below 210 ppmV. Throughout the Permian Period plant and animal species diverged and diversified as never before. Dinosaurs prospered and predominated over all the other orders of vertebrates. Coniferous plants first appeared in the Permian. The change of atmospheric temperature at the time of the Permian was around 10 °C. By comparison, the current change of global temperature is only 0.52 °C while the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide is 385 ppmV. If the global temperature is dependent on CO2, then the change of temperature at present would be around 10 °C or higher, as it was during the Permian Period.

From the early Triassic to the middle Cretaceous, the concentration of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was similar to its current density. From the late cretaceous to the early Miocene, the concentration climbed above 210 ppmV. During the Holocene period, the concentration has oscillated from 210 ppmV to 385 ppmV.

It is possible that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 will increase normally in the course of the next 50 million years to 1050 ppmV or 2500 ppmV.

We have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases several centuries after glaciations. Perhaps this is due to the fact that most plants perish at sub-zero temperatures, and plants are organisms that capture Carbon Dioxide from their surroundings to make food.

Scientists have also observed that the concentration of atmospheric CO2 increases during periods of warming. However, an increase in temperature always precedes an increase in carbon dioxide, which generally occurs decades or centuries after any change of temperature. We have not observed an increase in the concentration of Carbon Dioxide to have preceded a period of warming. This latter phenomenon occurs because when oceans absorb more heat from an increase in the amount of direct solar irradiance incident upon the Earth's surface, they release more Carbon Dioxide molecules into the atmosphere. Nevertheless, most drastic increases in CO2 concentration occur decades or centuries after the oceans have warmed up. For example, the present increase of atmospheric Carbon Dioxide was caused by an extraordinary increase in solar activity in 1998 which warmed up the El Niño South Atlantic Oceanic Oscillation.

These increases in concentration of atmospheric CO2 offer optimal conditions for the development and evolution of living beings on Earth. Human beings should adapt to these natural changes by means of science and technology.

Carbon Dioxide Through the Geological Eras

Hmm me thinks you guys are misleading if not fanciful.

I thought you wanted to talk about your CO2 charts going back 600,000 years? In those charts all those previous peaks in CO2 stopped at 0.3. It is now at .392 and showing no signs of slowing its accelerating upward trajectory. Are you abandoning that argument? Are you admitting you were wrong by starting this new argument thread using different evidence? I refuse to engage with new arguments until I know where you stand on that.

Throwing new arguments at the wall without addressing old ones, while hoping the new ones stick, is not an intellectually honest way of investigating a subject.

New arguments ? its all the same argument, I have presented you with facts.
For you to with what you want.

You can't unread what i presented to you. I hope you one day can use that information to get a clearer picture of the world we live in, and its changes.

Meaning your .392 is menial. That is the relation between my two posts.

Glad to have been able to help you.

Regards ecomodded.

Guys - actually the CO2 is currently at 0.0392%, not 0.392% Yeah, it makes a big difference as you are not going to be healthy at 0.392%.

Steve

The plot thickens
 

I'll elaborate on my first post, This is the other side of the story, Food for thought ? or are you just going insult me ? for posting an opposition to your beliefs..


As U.S. carbon dioxide emissions continue to decline, one would think global warming alarmists would celebrate the ongoing achievement. Instead, alarmists are ramping up their vitriol. The alarmists’ increasing vitriol reveals that for many alarmists, the true goal is not a reduction in carbon dioxide emissions, but instead a transfer of wealth and power from individuals to government.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration reports that U.S. carbon dioxide emissions during the first quarter of 2012 were the lowest since 1992. With more and more U.S. power plants switching from coal to natural gas, the decline is likely to continue and the reductions are likely to be permanent.
Don't Believe The Global Warmists, Major Hurricanes Are Less Frequent James Taylor James Taylor Contributor
Is Global Warming Causing A Record Breaking Lack Of Tornado Activity? James Taylor James Taylor Contributor
Good News For Polar Bears Is Bad News for Global Warming Alarmists James Taylor James Taylor Contributor
A Game-Changing Study Finds Half Of Global Warming Is Fictitious James Taylor James Taylor Contributor

The decline in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions is striking when we compare U.S. emission trends to global emission trends.

In 2000, U.S. emissions totaled 5.9 billion metric tons, while global emissions totaled 23.7 billion metric tons. Accordingly, in 2000 the United States accounted for 25 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

By 2010, however, U.S. emissions fell to 5.6 billion metric tons, while global emissions rose to 31.8 billion metric tons. Accordingly, in 2010 the United States accounted for merely 18 percent of global carbon dioxide emissions.

If the U.S. emissions reductions in early 2012 hold throughout the year, they’ll likely fall to merely 15 percent of the global total.

By the end of the decade, U.S. emissions will most likely decline to approximately 12 percent of global emissions, or less than half the U.S. share in 2000.

Keeping in mind that the United States produces 23 percent of the world’s Gross Domestic Product , reducing U.S. emissions to 12-to-15 percent of the global total is quite impressive.

These reductions in U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are taking place without all-intrusive, economy-wide, government-imposed restrictions. Yes, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency regulations that economically punish coal power plants are somewhat responsible for the shift to natural gas power, but so too are technological advances and new natural gas discoveries that have dramatically reduced the price of natural gas.

If the alarmists’ true goal is significantly reducing carbon dioxide emissions, they would acknowledge and celebrate these ongoing reductions. Instead, however, alarmists are doubling down on vitriol and hateful rhetoric.

Consider, for example, Bill Blakemore’s most recent column

on the ABC News Nature and Environment webpage. Among other things, Blakemore writes that “a number of climate scientists have told this reporter they agree with those, including NASA scientist James Hansen, who charge fossil fuel CEOs are thus guilty of a ‘crime against humanity.’” The traditional punishment for “crimes against humanity” is execution.

Why is it that so many alarmists are ratcheting up their vitriol and hateful rhetoric precisely when U.S. carbon dioxide emissions are rapidly declining? The answer is the alarmists are motivated more by a desire to reshape society into a government-centered model than they are interested in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Emissions are rapidly declining, yet money and power remains largely with the people rather than the government. Accordingly, activists ratchet up their hateful rhetoric.

For those who truly care about reducing carbon dioxide emissions, now is a time for celebration. For those who truly care about transferring money and power to government, now is a time to intensify their attacks.



Global Warming Alarmists Seek More Power, Not Emissions Reductions - Forbes

95% of the world's scientists are wrong ... global warming is a hoax?
My dad is a biologist ... we've been talking about climate change since the mid 80s. CO2 is way up. The oceans are acidifying. There is measurable sea level and temperature rise. These are facts.
In the 70s here in Canada we were cheerfully killing off our lakes with acid rain. SO2 was the culprit. We put scrubbers on the smoke stacks (oh we were going to kill our industries ... but hey, they survived) and now our lakes have fish in them again.
CO2 is a largely man made pollutant that needs to be controlled to safeguard our planet. Jeez. How hard is that to figure out?
Personally, as I live in Canada, I'm all for global warming. I miss ice fishing on the St. Lawrence (the areas we used to fish don't freeze up anymore), but warmer winters sure are nice. I'm losing my ash trees to emerald borers in part because they overwinter more successfully. But it's firewood and furniture for them. Not sure what I'll plant in their place yet. Ideas?

Remember 1977??
 

http://ecorenovator.org/forum/attach...1&d=1360963634

Ah those were the good old days.. :rolleyes:

Back then, all the worlds eggheads decided we were all going to freeze..
But, turned out to be a thing called 'weather changes sometimes'..

well. this is the thing about science. it's based on fact and evidence. in the 70s overall temperatures were falling. One note of evidence. White birch began growing south of the great lakes.
If you are not concerned that the ph level in the oceans is changing after being stable for 400,000 years than that is your personal perspective.
If others find this trend worrisome. That's understandable. From personal experience, as a diver, i have seen some of the most beautiful coral in the world. I recently dove Key West. The corals there are dead. Bleached white by increased water temperatures. There are no pretty colours, no wonderous fans, no fish. And, increasingly, no dive tourists.
If the US is reducing CO2 emissions they don't do so in a vacuum. China and India are both dramatically increasing CO2 output.
I've never understood why the US is so anti climate change. Boy it's like they take it as an assault on their ability to drive a car or have a job.

"I've never understood why the US is so anti climate change. Boy it's like they take it as an assault on their ability to drive a car or have a job."

I think folks who were once working in the non-renewable energy fields, and now on unemployment, will agree on that last part.
Living in this anti-nuke power country, they think the war on fossil fuels is a very bad idea.

~~~

Not all Americans are resistant to the idea of weather change.
Millions of kids in school are being taught that GW is a fact,
like gravity, it can't be denied. There can be no questions asked.

Since it's way too complicated for non-weather scientists to understand,
people have to take their word for it, "the world will end in 10 years" etc..

Sadly, weather scientists have been guilty of manipulating the data
to prove their 'facts', that can't be denied.
So, they have tainted the debate.. People don't trust anyone who stands
to make an easy living off taxpayers, because they say the world
is going to end in 10 years etc.. GW is very much like a religion.
You just have to trust, to have faith, to believe..

Like televangelist? Yeah quite a bit..

Good Points Xringer.


This is our first time we have crossed this period in time at the top of the Co2 scale. A Good time for Charlatans to rise to the forefront and "tell us how it is". Like they KNOW. They don't. There is NO reason to suspect anything is amiss.
Short of some apparent level headed,Yet grossly misleading people screaming the sky is falling the sky is falling.
Are we sheeple? not using our own mind to weigh the facts? is it our education ?, For our children Yes it is. Children are good Sheeple, easy marks, imprint what you want on them, it will stick, unless their parents wise them up,teach them to think not follow.

Conspiracy theory ? Not likely. its Brainwashing of the masses, no conspiracy there.
Am I officially Crazy now that I have made my own decisions, and chosen to oppose the Global Warming ALARMIST ?
I Am a hard "nut to crack", not going believe Some politicians world wide tour. what an unbelievable scam. Friggen Obvious to anyone with a mind of their own. So once again I will say it is Completely ridiculous and i will add baseless.

Creeky, you're right that there is a substantial portion of the population that thinks like that here. Fortunately we do not all think that way. Americans in many ways have been dumbed way down in the last several years due to the elimination of the fairness doctrine in media around the 80s and the change to news being made a part of the profit center in media.

A large part of the paranoia of the right comes from the constant drumbeat of a "liberal media" to the illiterati of our nation. This isn't even slightly true but it serves to cow the media from being critical of many of the bogus arguments and data coming from the right wing in the USA. So we don't get a balanced news media in the USA which creates distorted views like Ecomodded's views. You can see it in ecomodded's bringing up Al Gore, a hated symbol to the right, to try to rally the troops. It really is unfortunate that Eco continues to push a right wing agenda on a web discussion group that should be not be dedicated to politics but to impartial data and science.
Global Warming is not a political subject and associating the actual science of it, (not the policy regarding it), with politics degrades all of science. This isn't something that is at all new to humankind. It's happened through all human history when people didn't like what they heard, even though what they heard might be correct.

EDIT: Mr Eco resides in Canada so he has no excuse unless he's listening to too much to Mr. Murdoch's media outlets. Actually, in general its a good idea to just turn off the TV and read a good work of literature or a good (non-political) science book.

Saying that "Global Warming is not a political subject" and also saying it's
"Settled Science" and there can be no debate about it.?.

That kinda makes it a taboo subject that can't be discussed.?. At all.?.

Well, I just want to make one last comment before I unsubscribe from this thread..

If it's really "Settled Science", and we have all the facts nailed down solid..
Can we now stop spending so much taxpayer's money on GW 'studies'??

Can we divert that money to a program that might divert asteroids from impacting the earth??
http://youtu.be/gQ6Pa5Pv_io
Since that's a danger that even us non-asteroid-scientist can understand.

Wow
I to Hope the Governments Device a Asteroid Defense system.

We have the Geological evidence Of Asteroids hitting the Earth, its not a uneventful event.it could be a end of Complete races of people. Some may survive, in small pockets around the world, but whole countries and its inhabitants could be lost. Much,much more of a real threat then Our planets cycles.

I found this video link after following Xringer's Above link.
It is much more severe, and less drawn out, about 30 seconds in or so.
I think it could be the same incident, just from a closer vantage point

Падение метеорита в Чел�бин�ке.Же�ть!(Полна� вер�и�) - YouTube

We already do. With the said, the likely costs of anthropomorphic climate change are viewed as greater than the costs of an asteroid impact by most.

We can probably divert an asteroid in years to decades, but minimizing the impacts of and coping with the changes associated with climate change will take decades to centuries.

Oh no more stupid redirect.

Ya really think a Asteroid strike is over rated ? Not sure how many people hold that belief. If I had to guess I would say your all alone on that one.


It's not just nuke'n the Asteroid, Its detecting it that is the real issue.
We need more then bombs, All that space around us is much harder to monitor then one would think, at first glance. I will try to find some info on the subject, I already know we are far from even being close to being able to do that, from my research in the past..

Of around 180 worldwide, Australia bears the scars of more than 30 major impact craters.

Evidence of huge asteroid impact in the outback
The asteroid would have caused a global catastrophe.
Further research may reveal it to be older and possibly closer to the Late Devonian extinction event 360 million years ago.
AND
On Friday, a 45m-wide asteroid – 2012 DA14 – passed just 34,000km from Earth, closer than the distance of the Moon.

Evidence of huge asteroid impact found in outback - Australian Geographic

Let me bring you up to speed with reality.

I have in fact not watch TV for the last 9 years.

I actually used my own mind, my own search queries on the internet, to educate myself.

We are so not alike. I think it upsets you.

You my friend have been wrong at all of your attempts of insulting me.
Wrong as in off base. Its no wonder you believe what you do. Clueless ?
or just following the herd ? I just don't know in your case.

There ya go a direct reply to your childishness remarks.
I hope you can understand why I should bring it to your attention.
Truth is i feel sorry for you, and your weak assumptions.
Up to speed now ?

I hope we can put an end to insults right here right now.
And get on with more relevant and important discussion.

NASA is not doing enough to complete a mandated search for Earth-threatening asteroids and comets because the space agency is not receiving enough money for the problem, according to a National Research Council report.

Spaceflight Now | Breaking News | More funding needed to meet asteroid detection mandate

Sadly we can't afford to fund either of these problem areas..
Maybe China will take the challenge. But at the rate they generate CO2.?. Maybe not.
Not sure if they will be interested in space, after their customer are all in the poorhouse..

The USA as we know it, is just about ready for the scrapheap of history...

There Will Be No Economic Recovery. Prepare Yourself Accordingly. - YouTube
Links to info sources and charts etc.
There Will Be No Economic Recovery, Prepare Yourself Accordingly - Freedomain Radio

Please keep things civil guys. Discussion is good, insults are not acceptable.

Daox, I agree. I'll try to do better.

Eco Ok, let's keep this civil. Lets get back to your first principal argument for saying that global warming is a natural cycle. You referenced a chart showing concentrations of CO2, and other atmospheric gases, that were hidden in ice cores going back approx 600,000 years. In that chart there was a cyclic rise in CO2 levels approx every 125,000 years going back the last 350,000 years or so. You argued that according to that chart we are right on schedule and presumably will be quick to return to lower more usual CO2 levels quickly.

The interesting thing to me, and I'm sure to you, is that the chart shows CO2 levels that currently peak at the level of past CO2 peaks: about .03%. In reality the current level is .0392% according to the NOA. This is a level about 33% higher than any previous peak in the last 350,000 years. This just does not agree with an unbroken series similar peaks. The timing does appear to agree.

The point I'm making is that the timing only appears to agree because we are at a point in time were the data ends. Charts often break out of their recurring cycles and create new patterns as new data comes in. The world is not a static cycle machine and patterns change with the fullness of time. The CO2 level is now accelerating past any previous peak in the last 600,000 years and this acceleration coincides with the burning of carbon sequestered fuels by man.

What is your counter argument?

Please do post a link to your findings of 33% higher Co2 now then anytime in the last 350 million years.
Don't stop there Post another link that reports the Co2 levels for the last 1 million years.

I could use that material if you want to further the discussion.
I Don't want to miss your important facts or waste my time trying to disprove Someones baseless musings.
I already posted information on that, in the form of a Chart. I did not see a 33% increase anywhere. Or do you mean 3.33% 0.33% do tell.
Do enlighten me.

Here is the link, also in post 15:

http://co2now.org/images/stories/dat...-noaa-esrl.pdf

Both your chart and the table of CO2 values above are referencing numbers by PPMV. I read that as Parts Per Million by Volume of atmosphere. If you look at the latest findings in the above tables the most recent data in 2012 shows a number of 393.82 parts per million of CO2 by volume of atmosphere. By the usual math that equates to a CO2 level of .039% in the atmosphere.

The chart you referenced showed a current level of below 300 ppmv in the atmosphere or .03% of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is incorrect. So the CO2 is accelerating far above any previous cycle in that chart. I'm not giving any new information here. I'm just repeating and elaborating the information from post 15 that I've already offered. Technically that increase in percentage is 31.33% from the approx previous peak of 300 ppmv to the current 394 ppmv.

EDIT: Restating, the current CO2 peak is at least 1.31 times any of the previous peaks in the last 600,000 years. So I guess I was incorrect in saying the current level is 31% above previous. The proper wording is that the level now is 131% of any previous peak.

That is not helpful at all.
Its like Believing The Prosecuting Lawyer should send a man to prison, without a trial. That provided nothing,To me.
So you are standing behind Your Governments findings. And I should as well, I take it.
I`m sorry, it just does not work for me. How about from a source a little More Impartial, instead of from Somewhere where they have nothing to lose & everything to gain.
Think about it.
I suggest something from the Private Sector.
Where they Have nothing to gain, and everything to lose.

An important new paper published today in Global and Planetary Change finds that changes in CO2 follow rather than lead global air surface temperature and that “CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2” The paper finds the “overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere,” in other words, the opposite of claims by global warming alarmists that CO2 in the atmosphere drives land and ocean temperatures. Instead, just as in the ice cores, CO2 levels are found to be a lagging effect ocean warming, not significantly related to man-made emissions, and not the driver of warming

The highlights of the paper are:

► The overall global temperature change sequence of events appears to be from 1) the ocean surface to 2) the land surface to 3) the lower troposphere.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 11–12 months behind changes in global sea surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging 9.5-10 months behind changes in global air surface temperature.

► Changes in global atmospheric CO2 are lagging about 9 months behind changes in global lower troposphere temperature.

► Changes in ocean temperatures appear to explain a substantial part of the observed changes in atmospheric CO2 since January 1980.

► CO2 released from use of fossil fuels have little influence on the observed changes in the amount of atmospheric CO2, and changes in atmospheric CO2 are not tracking changes in human emissions.

Important paper strongly suggests man-made CO2 is not the driver of global warming | Watts Up With That?