Global Warming

[Partial]

The Earth is getting warmer. Discuss.

[GBRulz]

Green Bay has been above freezing for 1 hour in the past 30 days. A little tidbit on the news tonight. Global Warming my ass.

In all seriousness though, there are too many unproven theories about it. There isn't enough scientific evidence to suggest whether someone is right or is wrong.

[Joemailman]

The problem is that if we wait until we have absolute 100% scientific certitude that man-made global warming exists, it will probably be too late to do anything about it. We can do nothing and hope that everything turns out ok. Or we can take action now, knowing that if we err, we will have erred on the side of caution.

[red]

The problem is that if we wait until we have absolute 100% scientific certitude that man-made global warming exists, it will probably be too late to do anything about it. We can do nothing and hope that everything turns out ok. Or we can take action now, knowing that if we err, we will have erred on the side of caution.

exactly, well said joe

[falco]

The problem is that if we wait until we have absolute 100% scientific certitude that man-made global warming exists, it will probably be too late to do anything about it. We can do nothing and hope that everything turns out ok. Or we can take action now, knowing that if we err, we will have erred on the side of caution.

So you mean that even if it isn't causing global warming, its good to lower our levels of pollution? :shock:

[Joemailman]

I'm just a wild and crazy guy with wild and crazy ideas.

[red]

but isn't pollution good for us?

everyone says theres too much of it, yet people are living longer these days

more pollution = longer lives

duh

[Joemailman]

The one think I've always liked about air pollution is that on a bad day, you can see it. So if you breathe it, it's your own fault. It's not like you didn't know it was there.

[digitaldean]

Though I don't believe some of the hyperbole re: global warming, I still think we need to be better stewards of our planet. Fly into LAX or view Denver's skyline (or Chicago's from the Sears Tower) and you plainly see we are causing more pollution that affects our health and our children's health.

Even if you look at it from a purely national security standpoint, it makes more sense to develop more alternative sources of energy. Whether it be fuel cell technology, hydrogen, whatever.

We also need to be pushing harder to use biodiesel. A lot of countries have more options regarding diesel autos than the US. There are tax credits in Europe for biodiesel use, plus a lot more common sense emission standards compared to the U.S.

If our politicians on both sides of the aisle weren't in bed with the oil companies, more would get done.

We need to transform some of our existing cash crops like soybeans, etc. to be our own manufacturing areas for biodiesel.

The less we have to be dependent on foreign oil sources, plus finding more efficient ones, the better off we will be.

[Freak Out]

Green Bay has been above freezing for 1 hour in the past 30 days. A little tidbit on the news tonight. Global Warming my ass.

In all seriousness though, there are too many unproven theories about it. There isn't enough scientific evidence to suggest whether someone is right or is wrong.

Wrong. There is loads of data that show the effect humans use of coal and oil alone has on the atmosphere. Planetary weather fluctuates for many reasons, our activity is one of them.
Most Americans will or can do nothing until the Federal or State Gov's makes them or helps them to change. The sooner Bush is gone and the influence of Big Oil is out of the Whitehouse the better. No meaningful change will ever take place until someone else calls that place home.

[Kiwon]

It's all about the science, right?

Meet Maurice Strong, the godfather of the environmental movement.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,250789,00.html
.................................................. ..............................................

Bottom line: The UN can't be trusted on this issue.

[GBRulz]

Though I don't believe some of the hyperbole re: global warming, I still think we need to be better stewards of our planet. Fly into LAX or view Denver's skyline (or Chicago's from the Sears Tower) and you plainly see we are causing more pollution that affects our health and our children's health.

Even if you look at it from a purely national security standpoint, it makes more sense to develop more alternative sources of energy. Whether it be fuel cell technology, hydrogen, whatever.

We also need to be pushing harder to use biodiesel. A lot of countries have more options regarding diesel autos than the US. There are tax credits in Europe for biodiesel use, plus a lot more common sense emission standards compared to the U.S.

If our politicians on both sides of the aisle weren't in bed with the oil companies, more would get done.

We need to transform some of our existing cash crops like soybeans, etc. to be our own manufacturing areas for biodiesel.

The less we have to be dependent on foreign oil sources, plus finding more efficient ones, the better off we will be.

Agreed 100%. Heck, you don't even need to go to LA or Chicago...just take a look down the Fox River as you're going over the 172 bridge here in GB and you see all the pollution from the paper mills.

[Joemailman]

So because Fox News doesn't like some guy at The U.N. (Shocking!), that refutes claims about Global Warming? :roll:

[Little Whiskey]

If our politicians on both sides of the aisle weren't in bed with the oil companies, more would get done.



i think blaming the politicians is the easy way out. we won't see huge leeps in alt. fuel tech until the price comes down or until fossil fuel prices increase. notice when gas was over 3 bucks a gallon and threatening to go upwards of $5, is when the hybrid cars started gaing much popularity.

[Partial]

Hybrid cars are too big of a rip-off right now. They do very little for the environment with the way Americans drive right now.

They should make Diesel hybrids. 100 mpg with biodiesel capability would be pretty solid. They also need to find a way to genetically engineer corn to produce a higher bioavailablity or whatever it is called ( I read up on biodiesel like a year ago and don't remember the term ) .

Whether global warming is real or not, they should start making efforts to preserve or even improve the environment and the world. In addition to this, the united states could increase plastic development and cut dependency on foreign oil.

It could also propell our economy to an entirely new level.

[SkinBasket]

Alright. Let's get serious here. I stole this from Cyclone's post a few months back. My apologies:

http://www.venganza.org/piratesarecool4.jpg

As you can see, the only way to effectively combat global warming on any meaningful level is to become a pirate. Do it for your country. Do it for your unborn grandchildren. Do it for the crying forests.

I don't mean to tangentalize your thread Partial, but here's the link to the good ol' thread on global warming. If you like vicious, sometimes drunken, almost always under-informed discussion on a pseudo-political topic, then have a read. I know it pulled a few heart strings for me.

http://www.packerrats.com/ratchat/viewtopic.php?t=1269&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

[Zool]

Yarrrr....these stats be revealin the truth.

[rdanomly]

Debating it at this point seems almost pointless to me. Either you agree with the majority of trained professionals or you don't. What matters at this point is how we all act. You can "believe" in global warming all you want, but if you don't do anything to affect change that belief doesn't mean anything.

Gradually buy CFLs, Get a home audit by a HERS rater or BPI certified building professional, look at where you work to see what energy conservation can be done. Hell, if you don't care about the environment, do it because it can save you some money. There are countless other things that can be done to reduce CO2, conserve energy, and save some $. It is a win-win. Anyone else have ideas on what can be done?

[Merlin]

Global Warming is a myth. We do not have enough scientific data for the earth to say that the sky is falling. That is a fact. Not so long ago these same scientists were claiming we were going into the next ice age. So which is it? For those of you who think that humans are the cause of the problem, you do know that one volcanic eruption causes more toxins to be released into the air then man has released the entire time since the gasoline engine was introduced? Well if you don't know that, now you do.

Pollution is the only issue. It's not up to our government to protect us from ourselves. It's up to us to have enough respect for each other to want to do something about it.

Face it, nothing ever got better once the government got involved. The only thing I can say that happened was that taxes went up, the deficit went up and a 535 people got wealthier (that would be congress). For those of you who think the government is knee deep into the oil companies, I sure hope you aren't picking one side or the other for that one. Many people in both parties have oil investments. The problem is, some of you believe the rhetoric spewed by your local politician that says it's them and not me. Before you vote, next time do some homework on your representative, you may find out that they don't share anything in common with you accept that they don't like whoever the president is. Voting for that person based on that is purely idiotic!

[Partial]

So Merlin, how do you explain the largest ice cap ever recorded breaking off of greenland this week?

[SkinBasket]

So Merlin, how do you explain the largest ice cap ever recorded breaking off of greenland this week?

I'm not Merlin, but if I were I would say, "Records were made to be broken."

I would then ask what the ratio between the volume of the iceberg vs. the volume of the ocean is. Hell, I'll even take the ratio of iceberg vs. the Atlantic.

[Kiwon]

So because Fox News doesn't like some guy at The U.N. (Shocking!), that refutes claims about Global Warming? :roll:

So because Fox News publishes a well-researched 4000-word article by two reporters exposing the corruption at the U.N. (Shocking!) that validates claims about Global Warming? :roll:

[Charles Woodson]

Call me self absorbed or whatever but i dont understand whats the need to care about global warming and such, its not going to end ther world while me or my kids or my grandkids are around, besides its not even proven

[Zool]

Global warming or not, you have to realize that pollution is horrible for the planet. Go to LA sometime. There is a gray/brown cloud over the entire place. You cough when you first get there. Gasoline and deisel needs to go the way of the dodo.

[SkinBasket]

Global warming or not, you have to realize that pollution is horrible for the planet. Go to LA sometime. There is a gray/brown cloud over the entire place. You cough when you first get there. Gasoline and deisel needs to go the way of the dodo.

How will all of our dark visions of dirty futuristic metropolises come to pass if we clean everything up? If you're not careful the future will look more like Demolition Man, and we all know how that turned out.


http://www.movieactors.com/freezes1/DemolitionMan58.jpeg
Do you really want this to be as good as the future gets?

[Zool]

Nice Demolition Man reference. Sly Stallone, Rob Schneider and Sandy Bullock fighting crime in the future.


"In the future, all restaurants are Taco Bell"

[red]

Global warming or not, you have to realize that pollution is horrible for the planet. Go to LA sometime. There is a gray/brown cloud over the entire place. You cough when you first get there. Gasoline and deisel needs to go the way of the dodo.

How will all of our dark visions of dirty futuristic metropolises come to pass if we clean everything up? If you're not careful the future will look more like Demolition Man, and we all know how that turned out.


http://www.movieactors.com/freezes1/DemolitionMan58.jpeg
Do you really want this to be as good as the future gets?

i don't think anybody wants to learn how to use those sea shells

[Merlin]

If you can explain why we are not experiencing the warmest average weather on record currently. Or if you can explain how these "experts" predicted during the 1980's that we were entering the next ice age and then 20 years later said that 15 of the warmest years in history were since 1980 (THE SAME EXPERTS!) so now it's global warming. If you can explain how since records have only been kept since 1867 (and we all know the planet is ONLY 140 years old right?) that how can these "records" be anything but a joke? While 2001 was the second warmest year since records have been kept, it certainly is not the warmest. These "experts" say that 1998 was the warmest but I also seem to remember that 1935 was called the warmest. They can't even agree on which was the warmest so you are prepared to believe one side or the other?????????

Fact remains: One volcanic eruption is > all the pollution man has made into the atmosphere. That is a proven scientific fact. It is also a scientific fact that atmospheric pollution has gone down considerably since the industrial revolution began almost 80 years ago.

As far as ice falling into the ocean, um ISN'T THAT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO?

You do know that despite the chicken littles out there claiming the sky is falling that the ice caps a continue to get THICKER every year?

You do know that if you have a short fat 20 oz glass of water and replace it with a tall skinny 20 oz glass of water that you STILL HAVE 20 ounces of water?

[Partial]

If you can explain why we are not experiencing the warmest average weather on record currently. Or if you can explain how these "experts" predicted during the 1980's that we were entering the next ice age and then 20 years later said that 15 of the warmest years in history were since 1980 (THE SAME EXPERTS!) so now it's global warming. If you can explain how since records have only been kept since 1867 (and we all know the planet is ONLY 140 years old right?) that how can these "records" be anything but a joke? While 2001 was the second warmest year since records have been kept, it certainly is not the warmest. These "experts" say that 1998 was the warmest but I also seem to remember that 1935 was called the warmest. They can't even agree on which was the warmest so you are prepared to believe one side or the other?????????


Its called a trend line.



Fact remains: One volcanic eruption is > all the pollution man has made into the atmosphere. That is a proven scientific fact. It is also a scientific fact that atmospheric pollution has gone down considerably since the industrial revolution began almost 80 years ago.

Source? I'd like to see evidence of this.



As far as ice falling into the ocean, um ISN'T THAT WHAT IT IS SUPPOSED TO DO?

It's existed for thousands of years in its present state and suddenly melts right off?



You do know that despite the chicken littles out there claiming the sky is falling that the ice caps a continue to get THICKER every year?

Source? Proof?



You do know that if you have a short fat 20 oz glass of water and replace it with a tall skinny 20 oz glass of water that you STILL HAVE 20 ounces of water?

That's correct, but irrelevant.

[mraynrand]

Scientists also claim that the first eukaryotic cell emerged 3,800 million years ago. Of this they are certain. I'd doubt them, if not for the fact that I was there and saw it happen.


I predict that by 2158, the Earth will be encased in a 400 mile thick cellulose sheild excreted by a mutant, 600 mile wide, Mediterranean crustacean. I'll bet you 1,000,000 dollars I'm right. Want to knock this block off? - c'mon, I DARE you!

[red]

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=94

14 Jan 2005
The global cooling myth
Filed under:

* Climate Science
* Paleoclimate
* Greenhouse gases
* Instrumental Record
* FAQ

— william @ 5:31 am - (fr flag)

Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call "imminent" (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn't. The piece isn't from "Science"; it's from "Science News". There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the "ice age" strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions. From the "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations", we find that they said we should:

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

1. The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.

Further Reading:

Imbrie & Imbrie "Ice Ages: solving the mystery" (1979) is an interesting general book on the discovery of the ice ages and their mechanisms; chapter 16 deals with "The coming ice age".

Spencer Weart's History of Global Warming has a chapter on Past Cycles: Ice Age Speculations.

An analysis of various papers that mention the subject is at www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.



------------------------------------------

http://naturalscience.com/ns/forum/forum01b.html

OP-ED SCIENCE A MYTH:
GLOBAL WARMING IS HAPPENING

THOMAS R. KARL,1 KEVIN TRENBERTH2 and JAMES HANSEN3

1 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Climatic Data Center, Asheville, NC, USA

2 Climate Analysis Section, National Center for Atmospheric Research, Boulder, CO, USA

3 NASA/Goddard Institute for Space Studies, Greenbelt, MD, USA

The recent article by the chemists, Robinson and Robinson, appearing in The Wall Street Journal's Op-ed section on Thursday, December 4, 1997 "Science Has Spoken: Global Warming is a Myth" claims that, "there is not a shred of persuasive evidence that humans have been responsible for increasing global temperatures." The title of the article and the article itself contain many factual errors, unsubstantiated claims, and misleading statements. We enumerate some of these:

* Robinson and Robinson state, "The rise in [carbon dioxide] probably results from human burning of coal, oil, and natural gas, although this is not certain." On the contrary, there is no doubt that the atmospheric carbon dioxide increase is due to human activities as well as the increase in atmospheric concentrations of other greenhouse gases, such as methane, nitrous oxide, hydrofluorocarbons, perfluorocarbons, ozone in the troposphere, and sulfur hexafluoride. What's more, scientific evidence shows that greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, can remain in the atmosphere for centuries.

* Robinson and Robinson state that the global warming hypothesis is no longer tenable, and that scientists have been able to test it carefully and it no longer holds up. A review of the scientific literature reveals this simply is not true. First, there is no question that adding greenhouse gases will change the climate. There is a greenhouse effect. Second, man-made causes play a role. Most climate change detection studies find a strong likelihood, a 95% chance, that the pattern and magnitude of global warming are related to man-made causes.

* Robinson and Robinson state that the highest temperatures occurred about 1940. They further state that during the past 20 years, satellite measurements of atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to decrease. Unfortunately, the Robinsons' discussion is misleading. There are several salient facts to consider. (1) Near-surface temperatures where we live, work, and grow our food, reveal that through 1996, 1995 was the warmest year. (2) Seven of the ten warmest years on record (since 1853, when instrumental records begin) have all occurred in the past ten years. (3) During 1997, temperatures over the land are at near-record high levels as computed by both the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. Moreover, the United Kingdom's Meteorological Office projects 1997 to be the warmest since 1853 when both land and ocean data are combined. (4) Near-surface temperatures have increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.625 Celcius) over the past century. (5) High above the surface of the planet, one satellite temperature record (made up of contributions from nine different satellites) that averages data between about 5,000 and 30,000 feet in altitude shows some slight cooling since 1979, but the same satellite, averaging over a greater layer of the atmosphere between about 10,000 and 50,000 feet, shows warming over the same period. Moreover, weather balloons with a longer history show significant warming when they are analyzed further back in time, e.g., after 1957. (6) Lastly, extensive analysis of paleoclimatic data from tree rings, ice cores, and other sources suggest that Twentieth Century temperatures are definitely higher than any century since 1400 A.D. Prior to this time, global coverage is incomplete.

The scientific community has established an extensive peer-review process where well-qualified experts can assess and test the veracity of scientific claims. In atmospheric science, there are dozens of high-quality scientific journals with a long history of profound articles. An incorrect major scientific claim would be extremely difficult to maintain because scientists earn their reputations by developing better explanations of observed phenomena. We know of no major scientific articles since the 1996 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change statement that "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate," that directly challenges this conclusion. On the contrary, improved analyses, data sets, and models continue to support global warming as a real phenomenon.

We may agree with Robinson and Robinson on one point. There may be more serious issues than global warming that threaten continued advances in the quality of life for humankind. One of these is the attempt by Robinson and Robinson to misinform the general public about the scientific process and what is known and unknown in the frontiers of science.

December 18, 1997

[Zool]

Scientists also claim that the first eukaryotic cell emerged 3,800 million years ago. Of this they are certain. I'd doubt them, if not for the fact that I was there and saw it happen.


I predict that by 2158, the Earth will be encased in a 400 mile thick cellulose sheild excreted by a mutant, 600 mile wide, Mediterranean crustacean. I'll bet you 1,000,000 dollars I'm right. Want to knock this block off? - c'mon, I DARE you!I knew it! The mutant crustaceans are taking over RUUUUUUUUUUUUUN.

[SkinBasket]

Scientists also claim that the first eukaryotic cell emerged 3,800 million years ago. Of this they are certain. I'd doubt them, if not for the fact that I was there and saw it happen.


I predict that by 2158, the Earth will be encased in a 400 mile thick cellulose sheild excreted by a mutant, 600 mile wide, Mediterranean crustacean. I'll bet you 1,000,000 dollars I'm right. Want to knock this block off? - c'mon, I DARE you!I knew it! The mutant crustaceans are taking over RUUUUUUUUUUUUUN.

Screw that. Grab some lemon and a fork. Crustaceans are tasty.

[SkinBasket]

No offense red, but we should establish the same rules we had the last time we had the climate debate. You are not allowed to simply post articles unless they are specifically backing a point you are making. There's 2 reasons for this. First, no one reads them. Second, we could google both sides of this until we had posted 100,000 articles, and we wouldn't be any further along in the debate. Also, simply pulling out what you need with an indication and/or link to your source is adequete. Otherwise, again, no one will read it.

Also, please make sure your sources are current.... like more current than 1997.

[Partial]

Yes, I believe in all debates there should be a general judgement rule:

if a passage looks too long to read, it shop be clipped down to the relevant information. I am far too lazy :P to read all of that!!

[mraynrand]

Sometimes you have to be a little pragmatic and ask, what can actually be done and at what cost? For example, if China and India become the major global warming polluters, do we invade and force them to power down? Maybe that would be one invasion the left would support. Imperialism and conquest in the name of global cooling!

BTW, I watched 'Planet of the Apes' and given that it's 3500 years in the future and excepting the Apes and the forbidden zone, I'm thinking the future looks okay. (Think, if you're a hairy ape, you can still choose to get that laser treatment).



"YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! GODDAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" (perhaps this belongs in the 'favorite movie quote' thread)

[mraynrand]

Here's another thought - it was a degree cooler in the 1600s. If the global warming trends are correct it will climb another degree. Are we certain we will be unable to adapt as well as the puritans? If the sea level rises over 80 years, will people just stand in one place for decades and drown?

[the_idle_threat]

If the sea level rises over 80 years, will people just stand in one place for decades and drown?

I get the impression some of them will on account of principle, :lol:

[Zool]

I'm going to grow gills and become half man, half sea mammal. Mer-man though, not Aquaman. He's a little.....off

[the_idle_threat]

I'm going to grow gills and become half man, half sea mammal. Mer-man though, not Aquaman. He's a little.....off

I hear ya there re: Aquaman ... If I were a dolphin, I wouldn't want him anywhere near my blowhole ... :shock: :lol:

[SkinBasket]

Now this is the kind of climate debate I like!

[Freak Out]

Sometimes you have to be a little pragmatic and ask, what can actually be done and at what cost? For example, if China and India become the major global warming polluters, do we invade and force them to power down? Maybe that would be one invasion the left would support. Imperialism and conquest in the name of global cooling!

BTW, I watched 'Planet of the Apes' and given that it's 3500 years in the future and excepting the Apes and the forbidden zone, I'm thinking the future looks okay. (Think, if you're a hairy ape, you can still choose to get that laser treatment).



"YOU MANIACS! YOU BLEW IT UP! GODDAMN YOU ALL TO HELL!" (perhaps this belongs in the 'favorite movie quote' thread)

If my memory serves me correctly the women in POTAs were hot and MUTE! Lots of grunting and early vowel development. The climate looked very Mediterranean......I could handle that.

[the_idle_threat]

Could
Global
Warming
Have Caused
the Following???

http://www.womens-bikinis.com/Old/images/womens_bikini_swimsuits.jpg

[mraynrand]

Mmmmmm.....global warming.......

[red]

sorry, i forget people hate to actually research something themselves before forming an opinion and discussing it. they like the shortened, out of context info where an opinions already been formed for them. it helps us think less

the two articles i posted were replies to the claims merlin made

they discuss the articles where merlin got his ideas from and explain how they were made, ad put other claims into context

and the out of date article directly talked about the guys Robinson and Robinson whose article is where merlin got most of his figures

[rdanomly]

sorry, i forget people hate to actually research something themselves before forming an opinion and discussing it. they like the shortened, out of context info where an opinions already been formed for them. it helps us think less

the two articles i posted were replies to the claims merlin made

they discuss the articles where merlin got his ideas from and explain how they were made, ad put other claims into context

and the out of date article directly talked about the guys Robinson and Robinson whose article is where merlin got most of his figures

Thanks for posting the content Red. I hadn't come across those articles before.

[SkinBasket]

sorry, i forget people hate to actually research something themselves before forming an opinion and discussing it. they like the shortened, out of context info where an opinions already been formed for them. it helps us think less

the two articles i posted were replies to the claims merlin made

they discuss the articles where merlin got his ideas from and explain how they were made, ad put other claims into context

and the out of date article directly talked about the guys Robinson and Robinson whose article is where merlin got most of his figures


Well, now we know why the hell you posted them. And we aren't here to research for fuck's sake, we're here to have a semi-educated, poorly informed, insult-slinging debate. At least that's what I'm here for. And the free ice cream. Oh, shit it already melted. You can add that to your research data, buddy.

[Kiwon]

sorry, i forget people hate to actually research something themselves before forming an opinion and discussing it. they like the shortened, out of context info where an opinions already been formed for them. it helps us think less

the two articles i posted were replies to the claims merlin made

they discuss the articles where merlin got his ideas from and explain how they were made, ad put other claims into context

and the out of date article directly talked about the guys Robinson and Robinson whose article is where merlin got most of his figures

I appreciate your effort, Red. There are opinions and there are informed opinions. People generally hear what they want to hear, but research and debate is healthy. Being open-minded and intellectually honest is another matter.

Something really stinks when scientists, meteorologists, and climatologists have their jobs threatened, are compared to Holocaust deniers or worse because they have another view of the scientific data. Why is the only acceptable conclusion that human beings are destroying the planet?

When politicians, corrupt U.N. bureaucrats, journalists, and performers are the driving force of the latest science then something is very suspect. These are people who couldn’t begin to explain the data and reasons behind their beliefs. Talk about uniformed!

Why isn’t Ted Danson and those he represented trashed for declaring that the oceans would be dead by 1998? The science was wrong. Why doesn’t that matter?

Again, why is the only acceptable (not probable or likely) cause of global warming, human activity? Why is research and debate a threat to the status quo?

[red]

why do you insist on throwing away the research thousands of scientists have done, as not having enough pure hard facts. but trust a handfull that say the others are wrong?

what do those thousands of scientist have to gain? most won't make a dime off it. most won't recieve fame. so what would they gain for decieving us? why would they then do it?

i will say that i hate the fact this has become a political issue, because you know as well as i do that politicians will find a way to lie and cheat the facts to make it advantages to them. meaning we might not ever get the real facts

it seems to me when i was looking some things up earlier, that many of the things said against the global warming theory came from just a few sources, and everyone else on other sites listed them as the sources for why they believe global warming is a myth.


for me, when i dig into things, i try and look at both sides, and see what the other has to say

for me, side A says global warming is happening, because of thing 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

the media runs with it

side B comes out and says. global warming doesn't exsist because we looked at 2, 4, and 5. and we got different answers

the media runs with that

side A comes back and says, this is what side B did to get those results. and they did it wrong. for item 2 they took this group of evidence and applied this form of science to it and got the answer. that form of science as been should to not work, because of this that and the other. they got item 2 wrong because they were looking at this instead of that, and item 5 is a flat out lie because those things are made up and don't even exsist, and the guy is not even a scientist, he's a gynocologist

side B calls side A a bunch of poopey heads, just out to make money

news sites 1, 2, and 3 pick up on side A's latest statement

news site F, ignores the new stuff from side A, and continues with the info that side B gave

now the people that watch the first 3 news sites got everything thats been put out

the people that watch news F, only know what side 2 had to say, and have no clue those theories have been shown to be false. and they like it because it makes them happy, so they question nothing more

thats where i see our country at this point

and to me i see the global warming folks beig side A and anti-GW being side B

i haven't seen the anti crew come back and combat the claims that they were wrong and dissmiss those claims and show why they were right. i just see them sticking to their guns that they were right the first time

[Charles Woodson]

I still dont understand why the hell everyone cares. I mean it seems like "IF" and thats a fucking big if, If global warming is real i dont think the side effects will take place while me or my children hell or even my grand children are alive, i mean yea im self centered about this subject but i dont understand why we put so much crap into this, btw i like in miami, where i can breath fresh air, and swim in the ocean, to me miami was never cold to begin with adn its not going to change because of global friken warming

[BallHawk]

I still dont understand why the hell everyone cares. I mean it seems like "IF" and thats a fucking big if, If global warming is real i dont think the side effects will take place while me or my children hell or even my grand children are alive, i mean yea im self centered about this subject but i dont understand why we put so much crap into this, btw i like in miami, where i can breath fresh air, and swim in the ocean, to me miami was never cold to begin with adn its not going to change because of global friken warming

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

[rdanomly]

If anyone is in a design profession there is a teach in webcast coming up on the 20th: http://www.2010imperative.org/

[HarveyWallbangers]

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

Yeah, I get all of my non-partisan information from sources like Al Gore. Next thing, you'll suggest people watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or is it Fahrenhype) as a biography on George Bush.

[BallHawk]

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

Yeah, I get all of my non-partisan information from sources like Al Gore. Next thing, you'll suggest people watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or is it Fahrenhype) as a biography on George Bush.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and AIT are completely different movies. Michael Moore is a pompous idiot who disregards everything sensible to prove his point. Gore and Moore are completely different in their ways.

[Charles Woodson]

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

Yeah, I get all of my non-partisan information from sources like Al Gore. Next thing, you'll suggest people watch Fahrenheit 9/11 (or is it Fahrenhype) as a biography on George Bush.

Fahrenheit 9/11 and AIT are completely different movies. Michael Moore is a pompous idiot who disregards everything sensible to prove his point. Gore and Moore are completely different in their ways.

but the fact that its al gore is the reason why i wont/havent seen it

[digitaldean]

I agree we need to cut our emissions and find PLAUSIBLE alternative energy sources.

I do remember, however, a Newsweek article from April of 1975 called "The Cooling World" about how scientists were worried about global cooling. (yes, cooling). Another Ice Age was predicted.

There are scientists that believe the global warming issue a myth. There are well-known scientists in other countries that have recanted their stances on global warming being caused by man's creating CO2.

I am NOT a scientist by any stretch. But portraying those who disagree with the global warming theory the same as Holocaust deniers (Ellen Goodman, Boston Globe) is a bit much.

Reasonable discussion on both sides should get this rectified. But reason is in short supply. Smearing those who disagree with your stance is the order of the day.

[Freak Out]

Why isn’t Ted Danson and those he represented trashed for declaring that the oceans would be dead by 1998? The science was wrong. Why doesn’t that matter?

Spend any time in the oceans? I could give a fuck if Cheers boy missed it by a decade or three were dumping so much crap in the worlds ocean we are killing them along with everything that lives in them.
Pay attention.

[BallHawk]

CW, why don't you like Al Gore?

[Kiwon]

Why isn’t Ted Danson and those he represented trashed for declaring that the oceans would be dead by 1998? The science was wrong. Why doesn’t that matter?

Spend any time in the oceans? I could give a fuck if Cheers boy missed it by a decade or three were dumping so much crap in the worlds ocean we are killing them along with everything that lives in them.
Pay attention.

I agree; pay attention to what is taking place now. Stewardship of the environment should be a concern of everyone.

It's the dire doom-and-gloom predictions that are laughable and discourage people from being more environmentally conscious.

Most of the world is covered with water and fishing has sustained mankind for thousands of years. Do you really believe that people are going to "kill" the oceans and all the sea life in them?

[MJZiggy]

Maybe not the whole ocean ecosystem, but have you spoken to any fishermen lately? I haven't but from what I've heard, they aren't doing so well. It would also be nice to have a nice meal of fish without the added mercury, thanks. Pregnant women have to limit their fish intake for the health of the fetus? Doesn't sound quite right to me.

[Kiwon]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

[red]

I do remember, however, a Newsweek article from April of 1975 called "The Cooling World" about how scientists were worried about global cooling. (yes, cooling). Another Ice Age was predicted.

There are scientists that believe the global warming issue a myth. There are well-known scientists in other countries that have recanted their stances on global warming being caused by man's creating CO2.

this is actually one of the exact articles that i posted about earlier. from what i can see, the whole ice age theory comes from this article, and pretty much only this article


Every now and again, the myth that "we shouldn't believe global warming predictions now, because in the 1970's they were predicting an ice age and/or cooling" surfaces. Recently, George Will mentioned it in his column (see Will-full ignorance) and the egregious Crichton manages to say "in the 1970's all the climate scientists believed an ice age was coming" (see Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion ). You can find it in various other places too [here, mildly here, etc]. But its not an argument used by respectable and knowledgeable skeptics, because it crumbles under analysis. That doesn't stop it repeatedly cropping up in newsgroups though.

I should clarify that I'm talking about predictions in the scientific press. There were some regrettable things published in the popular press (e.g. Newsweek; though National Geographic did better). But we're only responsible for the scientific press. If you want to look at an analysis of various papers that mention the subject, then try http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/.

Where does the myth come from? Naturally enough, there is a kernel of truth behind it all. Firstly, there was a trend of cooling from the 40's to the 70's (although that needs to be qualified, as hemispheric or global temperature datasets were only just beginning to be assembled then). But people were well aware that extrapolating such a short trend was a mistake (Mason, 1976) . Secondly, it was becoming clear that ice ages followed a regular pattern and that interglacials (such as we are now in) were much shorter that the full glacial periods in between. Somehow this seems to have morphed (perhaps more in the popular mind than elsewhere) into the idea that the next ice age was predicatable and imminent. Thirdly, there were concerns about the relative magnitudes of aerosol forcing (cooling) and CO2 forcing (warming), although this latter strand seems to have been short lived.

The state of the science at the time (say, the mid 1970's), based on reading the papers is, in summary: "...we do not have a good quantitative understanding of our climate machine and what determines its course. Without the fundamental understanding, it does not seem possible to predict climate..." (which is taken directly from NAS, 1975). In a bit more detail, people were aware of various forcing mechanisms - the ice age cycle; CO2 warming; aerosol cooling - but didn't know which would be dominant in the near future. By the end of the 1970's, though, it had become clear that CO2 warming would probably be dominant; that conclusion has subsequently strengthened.

George Will asserts that Science magazine (Dec. 10, 1976) warned about "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation.". The quote is from Hays et al. But the quote is taken grossly out of context. Here, in full, is the small section dealing with prediction:

Future climate. Having presented evidence that major changes in past climate were associated with variations in the geometry of the earth's orbit, we should be able to predict the trend of future climate. Such forecasts must be qualified in two ways. First, they apply only to the natural component of future climatic trends - and not to anthropogenic effects such as those due to the burning of fossil fuels. Second, they describe only the long-term trends, because they are linked to orbital variations with periods of 20,000 years and longer. Climatic oscillations at higher frequencies are not predicted.

One approach to forecasting the natural long-term climate trend is to estimate the time constants of response necessary to explain the observed phase relationships between orbital variation and climatic change, and then to use those time constants in the exponential-response model. When such a model is applied to Vernekar's (39) astronomical projections, the results indicate that the long-term trend over the next 20,000 years is towards extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation and cooler climate (80).

The point about timescales is worth noticing: predicting an ice age (even in the absence of human forcing) is almost impossible within a timescale that you could call "imminent" (perhaps a century: comparable to the scales typically used in global warming projections) because ice ages are slow, when caused by orbital forcing type mechanisms.

Will also quotes "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" (Science, March 1, 1975). The quote is accurate, but the source isn't. The piece isn't from "Science"; it's from "Science News". There is a major difference: Science is (jointly with Nature) the most prestigous journal for natural science; Science News is not a peer-reviewed journal at all, though it is still respectable. In this case, its process went a bit wrong: the desire for a good story overwhelmed its reading of the NAS report which was presumably too boring to present directly.

The Hays paper above is the most notable example of the "ice age" strand. Indeed, its a very important paper in the history of climate, linking observed cycles in ocean sediment cores to orbital forcing periodicities. Of the other strand, aerosol cooling, Rasool and Schneider, Science, July 1971, p 138, "Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide and Aerosols: Effects of Large Increases on Global Climate" is the best exemplar. This contains the quote that quadrupling aerosols could decrease the mean surface temperature (of Earth) by as much as 3.5 degrees K. If sustained over a period of several years, such a temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age!. But even this paper qualifies its predictions (whether or not aerosols would so increase was unknown) and speculates that nuclear power may have largely replaced fossil fuels as a means of energy production (thereby, presumably, removing the aerosol problem). There are, incidentally, other scientific problems with the paper: notably that the model used was only suitable for small perturbations but the results are for rather large perturbations; and that the estimate of CO2 sensitivity was too low by a factor of about 3.

Probably the best summary of the time was the 1975 NAS/NRC report. This is a serious sober assessment of what was known at the time, and their conclusion was that they didn't know enough to make predictions. From the "Summary of principal conclusions and recommendations", we find that they said we should:

1. Establish National climatic research program
2. Establish Climatic data analysis program, and new facilities, and studies of impact of climate on man
3. Develope Climatic index monitoring program
4. Establish Climatic modelling and applications program, and exploration of possible future climates using coupled GCMs
5. Adoption and development of International climatic research program
6. Development of International Palaeoclimatic data network

Which is to say, they recommended more research, not action. Which was entirely appropriate to the state of the science at the time. In the last 30 years, of course, enormous progress has been made in the field of climate science.

Most of this post has been about the science of 30 years ago. From the point of view of todays science, and with extra data available:

1. The cooling trend from the 40's to the 70's now looks more like a slight interruption of an upward trend (e.g. here). It turns out that the northern hemisphere cooling was larger than the southern (consistent with the nowadays accepted interpreation that the cooling was largely caused by sulphate aerosols); at first, only NH records were available.
2. Sulphate aerosols have not increased as much as once feared (partly through efforts to combat acid rain); CO2 forcing is greater. Indeed IPCC projections of future temperature inceases went up from the 1995 SAR to the 2001 TAR because estimates of future sulphate aerosol levels were lowered (SPM).
3. Interpretations of future changes in the Earth's orbit have changed somewhat. It now seems likely (Loutre and Berger, Climatic Change, 46: (1-2) 61-90 2000) that the current interglacial, based purely on natural forcing, would last for an exceptionally long time: perhaps 50,000 years.

Finally, its clear that there were concerns, perhaps quite strong, in the minds of a number of scientists of the time. And yet, the papers of the time present a clear consensus that future climate change could not be predicted with the knowledge then available. Apparently, the peer review and editing process involved in scientific publication was sufficient to provide a sober view. This episode shows the scientific press in a very good light; and a clear contrast to the lack of any such process in the popular press, then and now.


i don't know, i think its worth a read

[Merlin]

I still dont understand why the hell everyone cares. I mean it seems like "IF" and thats a fucking big if, If global warming is real i dont think the side effects will take place while me or my children hell or even my grand children are alive, i mean yea im self centered about this subject but i dont understand why we put so much crap into this, btw i like in miami, where i can breath fresh air, and swim in the ocean, to me miami was never cold to begin with adn its not going to change because of global friken warming

I suggest you watch "An Inconvenient Truth" and then I'd be interested to see if your opinion is the same.

You mean kind of like Fahrenheit 911? Where the "truth" is conveniently buried? The inconvenient truth is that for every scientist that says man is causing global warming, there is one that says it isn't so. You do know that there are something like 200,000 scientists in the world that study this stuff right? So basically people are believing the blabbering of 1.25% of the scientists and ignoring the rest of them.

[Merlin]

The worst part about this whole topic is that those who post evidence backing them up are choosing to ignore the evidence that refutes it. The truth is always somewhere in the middle and I am not going to go running around saying the sky is falling to scare people into voting for me. It's a political issue and you morons who buy into it probably vote that way to.

Pollution is my only concern. Not whether or not a handful of whack jobs on either side for that matter say this or that. The inconvenient truth is that they don't really know as much as they would have you believe. When you get a majority of the scientists who study this stuff to agree (not 1.5% or 2500 to say it's happening or not, 100,001 who agree it is) then let me know. Until then you are buying a bridge and if you are that stupid, I have some land to sell you....cheap.

[Freak Out]

I have some land to sell you....cheap.

Is it on the beach? Lol!

[MJZiggy]

Go for a couple miles off the beach, Freak Out. The beach will come to you eventually... 8)

[Freak Out]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

Stormwater runoff, untreated wastewater discharge and ocean dumping are all huge problems but over-fishing will wipe out entire fish stocks like it's done in the past. I live in Alaska and the State manages the fisheries here as well as any wild fisheries can be managed but there are still problems. The Bering Sea Pollock and cod fisheries are a gold rush which will end in a crash and the unregulated fishing (beyond 200 miles offshore) is a crime. The fucking drifters with gear MILES and MILES long are just raping the sea of everything they can scoop up.....if they consider it trash it just goes over the side.... Between the Russians and all the Asian nations just continually fishing these grounds it will gone for good within our lifetimes. Our fishing methods are so much more efficient than the old Grand Banks cod fisheries of old we'll kill it off much sooner than they did. And you don’t even want to know what goes on in the fish farms....Alaska has kept them banned from State waters but we still get escaped farm fish from BC up our rivers...with the diseases they bring. Humans will screw it up.

[Merlin]

For anyone who is interested in the science behind the differing views of Global Warming, there are some great reads both for and against it here:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/warming/debate/

As I said, scientists can't agree and even some that support Global Warming can't attribute it to humans anymore then they can attribute it to a natural phenomenon. One of the scientists who supports it even says that the "Hole in the ozone" scare wasn't fully covered by the media as the "hole" would open in the spring and shrink afterwards or something like that (sorry, I read all the articles so my brain is turning to mush right now). Basically he states that the ozone has the ability to "heal" itself and CFC's may have nothing to do with it or everything to do with it.

So IMO, there you have irrefutable proof that we just don't really know. Yes it is ok to error on the side of caution, but it's the degree of that caution that is the political debate. Pollution affects cities and their temperatures more then it does in the suburbs and country, that is a fact. We just need to keep working towards cleaner fuel sources as we have been.

Using the "Sky is falling" scare tactic used by many liberals on many different things is doing nothing for anyone. Mr "Inconvenient Truth" Al Gore is the biggest hypocrit of all. Ask him how much CO2 the PRIVATE jets he uses to fly around the globe emit, or the caravan of SUV's his cronies and Secret Service use to follow him around spew out. He is a typical left wing nutball who uses the same logic they all do, do as I say not as I do.

[red]

in all fairness, this is america. we don't care about anything, we are desensitized to everything

if scientists come out and say, "you know what, we might be harming the environment, and it might make it hard for future generations to live". there would be about 5 or 6 americans that could give a shit, and we'd all still be waiting for the new bigger version of the ford excursion, so we can suck down 3 miles per gallon

no one would do shit, and no one could care. scientists have been saying for decades polution is bad, no one cared

however. if you come out and scream. "we are all going to die, and itd because of what we're doing".

now you've caught peoples attention.

you have to admitt, a lot more people are interested in the environment these day. and some people are actually doing something to help it. i would think the fear of global warming has pushed the alternate fuels debate along. and i don't think any of uss could say thats a bad thing

is the world coming to an end in 50 years, probably not. is there a chance it will? sure theres a chance.would anybody give a shit about pollution if there wasn't a chance the world could end in 50 years? probably not, because its not convenient for us to change our way of life to help others down the road.

now, this might not really be whats happening. but it could be. i don't know

you have to work in extremes in this day in age, in this country if you want to get anyones attention

if you work in the middle, no one will notice or care

[Merlin]

I disagree with the whole "the sky is falling" theory. I was brought up in the 1970's and 80's. The EPA had a huge marketing strategy that impacted myself and many others as we were growing up. Who could ever forget those tree hugging stickers and the Indian crying at the pollution on TV. That made a difference then and it would work today. That campaign is long gone and instead of that kind of marketing, we have the liberal mainstream media ramming half truths and down right lies down our throats. A day, hell a second, doesn't go by when they don't have something negative to say in support of some liberal position no matter how naive that position is.

The difference is that the extreme left and even moderate liberals think they have to scream the loudest to be heard, even if what they are screaming isn't the truth. It's their way or no way. Their mantra is that we cannot live without them and they use scare tactics to get people to believe them.

For years it was Social Security and how the evil conservatives were going to take it away. What you didn't hear how it was the Democratic held congress that pilfered it for 30 years when they had control. They spent all of the baby boomer's payments and now there is a problem because there aren't enough workers to pay for all those retirees. And it's the conservatives who are trying to take it away? Seems to me that the liberals took it away years ago and want more of my money to pay for their mistake.

Then we have the war in Iraq. Nearly every western nation including China & Russia believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and the power to make them. This included almost every liberal in Congress. This was based off of world-wide intelligence, not the Bush administration. Bill Clinton administration held the same beliefs. Now that the main thrust of the war is over, liberals and some RINO's are running around condemning the war and saying things like "If I knew then what I know now". Well guess what, it's WAR and it doesn't have a script. WMD's were in fact found, unless you consider enough sarin gas to kill 300,000 people not a WMD. If so, please tell me how many people have to die before it's considered a WMD? It is true that we did not find stockpiles that are more than likely sitting in Syria as many in the world intelligence committee believe. However, Iraq did have ties to Al Queida, not to 9/11, there is a difference. Iraq was sponsoring terrorism under Saddam. There were many reasons to go to war, most of which the American people could not easily get behind. So the President used the simplest message in his address to the people. He didn't lie because if he lied then there are 435 other people in Congress and about 100 countries that did as well. You have the right to protest and have your opinions. That is afforded you by the very people the liberals vilify at every turn. The mainstream media, instead of supporting our hero's, goes out of it's way to make the liberals bashing our hero's seem right or "it was a bad joke". If a conservative said the same things the liberals are, you can bet your bottom dollar the media would be all over it. Take a look at the Libby trial. I mean really, the whole thing was much to do about nothing because Valeri Plume was no longer an under cover agent when her name was given out, therefore no laws had been broken. So now we have the whole Libby purgered himself thing splashed all over the media. What about John Kerry going to Sweden and calling our country a "poria" on the world bent on world domination? YOU WANTED THIS GUY FOR PRESIDENT?

The media is behind the liberal agenda, the usual nut balls are behind the liberal agenda and you think we need more of "The Sky is Falling" rhetoric? I think not. What we need is a huge does of reality that we live in the greatest country in the world and that our freedoms (which are not free) will not be taken away from us without a fight. You cannot come into our country , bully us, and expect us to be "tolerant" of your culture. We have a culture and if you don't like it, leave. If you are here illegally, expect to be deported. Don't expect government handouts, free education and health care.

Face it, our society has become complacent with the false sense of reality that the government will take care of us. That isn't the governments job. It's our job to take care of ourselves and our environment. If you don't care, fine, that is your right. But don't go running around with your head cut off claiming that I have to pay for your liberal nut job ideas because frankly, you aren't right all that often and in fact are already wasting my money on silly social programs aimed at keeping Americans dependent on the government for their very livelihood.

[the_idle_threat]

[/rant]


:D

[Merlin]

"this is actually one of the exact articles that i posted about earlier. from what i can see, the whole ice age theory comes from this article, and pretty much only this article "

Then I guess you haven't done your research very well. I suggest you go read the articles on the link I posted earlier. You may be surprised to find out that there is more than one "article", more than one "scientist" and a hell of a lot more than two theories on Global Warming.

THE SKY IS FALLING!

[Merlin]

MJZ, fishermen where? Korea? How's the fishing in Indonesia, the Philippines, Norway or Finland?

There might be pollution problems in certain areas but it's a mistake to assume that the same problems exist everywhere else in the world.

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

We can constructively address the pollution issues, net fishing, over-fishing, etc. without hysteria and hyperbole.

I agree whole-heartedly. The old "say it enough it becomes the truth" and the "crowd theory" have caused us to lose many rights in this country.

Like the right to raise your child as you see fit to name an obvious one.

[MJZiggy]

(It's not actually falling...more like opening up with giant holes in it....)

:whist:

[the_idle_threat]

But aren't those holes being filled with nice, warm, insulating greenhouse gas?

And what does it matter ... if we're all dead by 2050, then it's too late to do anything about it now! :D

[Merlin]

[/rant]


:D

LOL

I just get pissed off when people go spewing crap without ever looking at the whole picture. I read both side and in this case, the truth is in the middle! The rest of it is just showing that there is a mass hysteria going on, fueled largely by liberals and the mainstream media. For every liberal view that the media spews, you hear it 1,000 times. You may hear the conservative side once in a week and it's short and sweet. But just because you didn't hear it 1,000 times, somehow it isn't true!

GAK
:)

[Merlin]

You guys really need to read those articles. The holes aren't filling with green house gases, they are in fact filling with ozone. GEEEEEEEEEEEZ

If you are going to argue with me at least have the courtesy of reading the same thing I did so you can see where I got it from?!?!?!?!

:P

[Merlin]

But aren't those holes being filled with nice, warm, insulating greenhouse gas?

And what does it matter ... if we're all dead by 2050, then it's too late to do anything about it now! :D

I didn't plan on living much past then anyway :)

[the_idle_threat]

You guys really need to read those articles. The holes aren't filling with green house gases, they are in fact filling with ozone. GEEEEEEEEEEEZ

If you are going to argue with me at least have the courtesy of reading the same thing I did so you can see where I got it from?!?!?!?!

:P

I'm not arguing with you ... I'm mocking the liberal arguments.

[Merlin]

Hard to tell when I am this bent out of shape. Someone in my office said I should run for office and I told them I am "unelectable", she asked why and I said because people don't want the truth, they want sunshine blown up their asses and I can't bring myself to do that!

[Freak Out]

[/rant]


:D

LOL

I just get pissed off when people go spewing crap without ever looking at the whole picture. I read both side and in this case, the truth is in the middle! The rest of it is just showing that there is a mass hysteria going on, fueled largely by liberals and the mainstream media. For every liberal view that the media spews, you hear it 1,000 times. You may hear the conservative side once in a week and it's short and sweet. But just because you didn't hear it 1,000 times, somehow it isn't true!

GAK
:)

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz......

Mass hysteria? Lol....

[red]

well i'm convinced

he's tex

only the extreme left liberal hiippies are the ones that do all the lying, because my fox news and ruch limbaugh told me so

[the_idle_threat]

I don't think I've ever met an extreme right liberal hippie. But then a again if you get far enough to either end of the political spectrum, the looniness gets more and more similar.

[red]

I don't think I've ever met an extreme right liberal hippie. But then a again if you get far enough to either end of the political spectrum, the looniness gets more and more similar.

whoops lol

fixed

all this right and left stuff scrambles my brains

[Freak Out]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

[red]

You guys really need to read those articles. The holes aren't filling with green house gases, they are in fact filling with ozone. GEEEEEEEEEEEZ

If you are going to argue with me at least have the courtesy of reading the same thing I did so you can see where I got it from?!?!?!?!

:P

you gave one link that i can find

[mraynrand]

What about John Kerry going to Sweden and calling our country a "poria" on the world bent on world domination?

I think you meant pariah (social outcast) - or maybe Peoria (city in IL). Come to think of it, Kerry might have meant Peoria. Kerry pretty much thinks everyone in flyover country is a social outcast, including all the folks at Lambert Field.

[mraynrand]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

I can see the NYT headlines now: "Slovenliness Destroying Earth's Oceans"

[red]

one thing i have picked up so far from your pbs link

you gave this quote, and have mentioned it a few times now



Fact remains: One volcanic eruption is > all the pollution man has made into the atmosphere. That is a proven scientific fact. It is also a scientific fact that atmospheric pollution has gone down considerably since the industrial revolution began almost 80 years ago.



this site is one of a few i have gotten some info from

http://www.geology.sdsu.edu/how_volcanoes_work/climate_effects.html

it says that volcanoes are responsible for about 110 million tons a year of CO2.

co2 is the main greenhouse gas

that same site says humans put up 10 BILLION tons each year. and your site (pbs) says that humans put up 20 BILLION tons of CO2 in a year

this site

http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/Hazards/What/VolGas/volgas.html

says "Scientists have calculated that volcanoes emit between about 130-230 million tonnes (145-255 million tons) of CO2 into the atmosphere every year. and humans put up "about 22 billion tonnes per year (24 billion tons)".

they then say "Human activities release more than 150 times the amount of CO2 emitted by volcanoes--the equivalent of nearly 17,000 additional volcanoes like Kilauea (Kilauea emits about 13.2 million tonnes/year)!"

do you have something to backup your statement. or a link i can look at?

[Merlin]

It was something I read a long time ago so no, I don't have a link. But I do have these:

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html
http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/665
http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

When you get done reading those contradictory articles on the effects of volcanoes, maybe then you'll get it. I doubt it though. (You do know that search engines return more then two links right? That you have to read more then the first thing you see to get a clearer picture of the truth right?)

Also, if this is the only thing I said that was inaccurate in the face of the other evidence that I have provided then you my friend are a hypocrite, just like every other left wing nut job. You pick one thing out of a pile of evidence and repeat it like a parrot until someone believes you on the whole pile. Face it, you're wrong. Global warming is more than likely a natural phenomenon according to ALL of the contradictory scientific evidence out there.

Why we are on the subject of fact, my analogy with the 20 oz,. glass of water went WAY over your head. Evidently to you, an ice cap with the same volume of ice, whether short, tall, fat or skinny, is somehow a different volume of ice. You went to a public school I bet. I would ask for a refund on that Physics class...

Facts are Facts whether you chose to believe them or not.

Don't let reality interfere with your logic my friend, then what would you have to scare people with?

[Freak Out]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

I can see the NYT headlines now: "Slovenliness Destroying Earth's Oceans"

Lol.........GQ would run it.

[red]

It was something I read a long time ago so no, I don't have a link. But I do have these:

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html
http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/
http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/665
http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

When you get done reading those contradictory articles on the effects of volcanoes, maybe then you'll get it. I doubt it though. (You do know that search engines return more then two links right? That you have to read more then the first thing you see to get a clearer picture of the truth right?)

Also, if this is the only thing I said that was inaccurate in the face of the other evidence that I have provided then you my friend are a hypocrite, just like every other left wing nut job. You pick one thing out of a pile of evidence and repeat it like a parrot until someone believes you on the whole pile. Face it, you're wrong. Global warming is more than likely a natural phenomenon according to ALL of the contradictory scientific evidence out there.

Why we are on the subject of fact, my analogy with the 20 oz,. glass of water went WAY over your head. Evidently to you, an ice cap with the same volume of ice, whether short, tall, fat or skinny, is somehow a different volume of ice. You went to a public school I bet. I would ask for a refund on that Physics class...

Facts are Facts whether you chose to believe them or not.

Don't let reality interfere with your logic my friend, then what would you have to scare people with?

what the fuck is your problem?

i questioned one of the things you claimed was a fact. and asked for a link so i can read more.

and you thrown a little fit

you go around this entire site and act like a complete fucking asshole about everything to everyone

what the hell is your problem?

i have read what you've given, and i've given sites that condradict those specific ideas. yet you ignorned what i wrote i searched for a little over an hour using a few search engines to find some things that back up your side, and found very little. thats why i asked for links

you yourself are completely unwilling to have a real discussion about this. you just want to have an all out bitch fest like you try to do in every other thread

go to JSO with the rest of the asshole that aren't willing to discuss anything

i won't look at your links, you lose. i tried to be civil and have a decent debate. but you had to act like a complete idiot. you didn't want to talk about anything, you just wanted reason to throw a fit

[Partial]

Merlin's a whiney bitch Red. Simple as that.

[red]

thanks for the backup partial

well i read your 5 articles, and i'm really not sure what the hell you were trying to prove with them

http://www.physorg.com/news3694.html

talks about how two guys researched the Pinatubo eruption, and have said that scientists have to redo their models because they currently think that volcanoes impact temperature for longer then they saw in that eruption

http://timlambert.org/2005/06/pearson-claims-that-undersea-volcanoes-cause-global-warming/

this ones tuff to read because you really can't tell who's saying what, or even what the hell they are trying to prove. this article is just blasting a guy who thinks underwater volcanoes cause global warming. they also say an architect wrote a book on underwater volcanoes doing more damage then humans. to me this one is killing your stance more

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Study/Volcano/

another Pinatubo article talking about how volcanos lower the earths temp for a few years. still nothing about them doing more damage than humans

http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/665

this one talks about how we could use made made volcanoes to help slow down the effects of global warming to buy us a few more years

http://bioresonant.com/news.htm

this one is warning us that if we don't do something to fix global warming now, the earths core will overheat and the planet will explode

-----------------

nothing in any of those came anywhere close to proving your "fact" that one volcano pollutes more then everything man has ever done

were you just trying to waste my time with those?

[rdanomly]

The irony doesn't come in until the second page..

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/15/garden/15snow.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

"As global warming continues to wreak havoc with the weather, snowmakers impose a nostalgic order — albeit one that does nothing to help the situation, since snowmaking runs on electricity (and water, of course, one and a half to six gallons a minute, depending on the size of the machine). Charles Santry, president of Snow Economics, said his Backyard Blizzard Sport machine, which has a 1.5 horsepower engine, can use up to 1,650 watts. A clothes dryer guzzles more power, but snowmaking is certainly not going to win any green awards."

[mraynrand]

Mt. St. Jelens produced almost 1 billion kg of CO2 over a four month non-eruption period. The 'yearly average CO2 emissions' from volcanic activity is a long term average that was a cumulative average obtained by helicopters measuring CO2 levels over/near volcanoes, so it's very limited and subject to large error and I think doesn't really account for major eruptions. I have yet to find a source that can reliably convince me that any of these guys know what any of these massive volcanoes actually emitted as far as CO2 is concerned.

Clearly, the emission of dust, sulfer, and other particles from single eruptions had significant cooling effects (up to 1C for a year). Presumeably settling of particulate matter allowed temperatures to climb back up. CO2 has a residence time of about 100 years but I'm not certain of all the facors that go into that calculation. You have to realize that scientists are making all sorts of assumptions about how much CO2 will be absorbed/converted to solid mass by plants here and in the amazon, absorbed by the oceans, converted to other chemicals, etc.

Any prediction for the future must rely on limited entry variables and cannot account for any unforseen changes in politics (allowing the biliding of nuke plants, for example), technology (e.g. development of cheap fusion, solar, improved efficiencies reducing emissions and increasing gas milage), demographics (e.g. slowing population growth in industrialized nations).

[Kiwon]

Again, why would this generation of humans destroy the oceans that they depend upon for survival? It makes no sense.

Greed. Ignorance. Slovenliness. Not necessarily in that order.

Or maybe misguided environmentalists.........

Tire reef off Florida proves a disaster (AP story)
-- Fort Lauderdale

"A mile offshore from this city's high-rise condos and spring-break bars lie as many as 2 million old tires, strewn across the ocean floor — a white-walled, steel-belted monument to good intentions gone awry.

The tires were unloaded there in 1972 to create an artificial reef that could attract a rich variety of marine life, and to free up space in clogged landfills. But decades later, the idea has proved a huge ecological blunder.

Little sea life has formed on the tires. Some of the tires that were bundled together with nylon and steel have broken loose and are scouring the ocean floor across a swath the size of 31 football fields. Tires are washing up on beaches. Thousands have wedged up against a nearby natural reef, blocking coral growth and devastating marine life.

"The really good idea was to provide habitat for marine critters so we could double or triple marine life in the area. It just didn't work that way," said Ray McAllister, a professor of ocean engineering at Florida Atlantic University who was instrumental in organizing the project. "I look back now and see it was a bad idea."

In fact, similar problems have been reported at tire reefs worldwide.

"They're a constantly killing coral-destruction machine," said William Nuckols, coordinator for Coastal America, a federal group involved in organizing a cleanup effort that includes Broward County biologists, state scientists and Army and Navy salvage divers.

Gov. Charlie Crist's proposed budget includes $2 million to help gather up and remove the tires. The military divers would do their share of the work at no cost to the state by making it part of their training.

A monthlong pilot project is set for June. The full-scale salvage operation is expected to run through 2010 at a cost to the state of about $3.4 million.

McAllister helped put together the ill-fated reef project with the approval of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. He helped raise several thousand dollars (the county also chipped in), organized hundreds of volunteers with boats and barges, and got tires from Goodyear.

Goodyear also donated equipment to bind and compress the tires, and the Goodyear blimp even dropped a gold-painted tire into the ocean in a ceremonial start to the project.

The tire company issued a press release at the time that proclaimed the reef would "provide a haven for fish and other aquatic species," and noted the "excellent properties of scrap tires as reef material."

It was a disappointment, just like other tire reefs created off coastal states and around the world in recent decades.

"We've literally dumped millions of tires in our oceans," said Jack Sobel, an Ocean Conservancy scientist. "I believe that people who were behind the artificial tire reef promotions actually were well-intentioned and thought they were doing the right thing. In hindsight, we now realize that we made a mistake."
(break)

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070217/ap_on_sc/tire_reef_blunder&printer=1;_ylt=ApKdBszSySMv9KHRccD4BGNxieAA
.................................................. .....................................

Sorry, guys, good intentions don't cut it or undo the 35 years of damage done by environmentalists to marine life. All these experts, all these volunteers, all these scientific theories were wrong, wrong; that's wrong as in W-R-O-N-G.

But, wait, suddenly everyone is so much smarter this time around in understanding the causes and implications of global warming? Me don't think so.

I respect everyone's opinion, pro or con, and I note that there is scientific support for both sides. But I'm not willing to wreck the world economy on the basis of hysteria, much of which is religiously and politically motivated. Scientists make mistakes all the time because (gasp) they are human.

Now to my pro-GW friends, two simple questions:

1. Do you really believe the world will be a "frying pan" in 9 years (Al Gore's prediction) or that the natural resources of earth will be exhausted by 2050 assuring the death of mankind?

2. If so, how does that belief practically change your life? Please answer honestly. I am interested in your perspective.

[HarveyWallbangers]

(It's not actually falling...more like opening up with giant holes in it....)

:whist:

That whole hole in the ozone layer theory has been refuted, IMHO, by non-partisan scientists (well, as non-partisan as I could determine). Notice that isn't much of a talking point anymore. Just like Global Cooling.

[MJZiggy]

I was being facetious...

[mraynrand]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

[Kiwon]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

Nailed it, mraynrand. High five.

My favorite anti-Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign bumbersticker, "Better Dead than Ted"

[BallHawk]

It'll be interesting to see if the G-8 Summit will have any affect on the US' continued freeze to do little about global warming. Hopefully, people like Blair will be able to convince Bush to do otherwise. I don't forsee it, though. We, as Americans, can be so stubborn sometimes. :huh:

[Rastak]

Remember when Ted Kennedy tried to start his own tire reef? Problem was he forgot to remove the tires from the car before tossing them in the water.

Nailed it, mraynrand. High five.

My favorite anti-Ted Kennedy 1980 presidential campaign bumbersticker, "Better Dead than Ted"



Yea, but when he bought that floating car, you have to admit it showed some intelligence.....also the life raft in the trunk....

[Merlin]

Convince Bush? How about the Global Warming lunatics step down off of their high horses and start wearing fig leaves and living out doors, hunting and gathering? I mean really, show me the proof that man had anything to do with climate change? C02 levels? It's a myth, there is no correlation between the "global warming" and man made CO2 levels. In fact, mans contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is less then one half of one percent of the total! AND scientists don't even think CO2 is the issue! EVEN THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY STATED IT WAS.

Face it, the planet warms and cools on it's own. Trying to control it is ridiculous. Controlling pollution is a great idea but don't go running around saying the sky is falling while you are living indoors, wearing your $100 Nike's driving your bullshit "hybrid" car with all of the fossil fuels it "saves" when in reality it costs a lot of fossil fuel to produce a battery that allows your car to get no better mileage then a car that doesn't have that technology. Better yet, take your $8 a gallon corn based ethanol (you do know corn is subsidized by TAX DOLLARS) and shove the whole cob up your ass.

You friggin liberal tree hugging idiots are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to planet. You couldn't go one day without using something that isn't made from fossil fuels, man made, or harmed the environment. When you can do that, then come talk to me.

[Zool]

Convince Bush? How about the Global Warming lunatics step down off of their high horses and start wearing fig leaves and living out doors, hunting and gathering? I mean really, show me the proof that man had anything to do with climate change? C02 levels? It's a myth, there is no correlation between the "global warming" and man made CO2 levels. In fact, mans contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is less then one half of one percent of the total! AND scientists don't even think CO2 is the issue! EVEN THOSE WHO PREVIOUSLY STATED IT WAS.

Face it, the planet warms and cools on it's own. Trying to control it is ridiculous. Controlling pollution is a great idea but don't go running around saying the sky is falling while you are living indoors, wearing your $100 Nike's driving your bullshit "hybrid" car with all of the fossil fuels it "saves" when in reality it costs a lot of fossil fuel to produce a battery that allows your car to get no better mileage then a car that doesn't have that technology. Better yet, take your $8 a gallon corn based ethanol (you do know corn is subsidized by TAX DOLLARS) and shove the whole cob up your ass.

You friggin liberal tree hugging idiots are nothing but a bunch of hypocrites when it comes to planet. You couldn't go one day without using something that isn't made from fossil fuels, man made, or harmed the environment. When you can do that, then come talk to me.Holy crap. Good thing you dont call people names. Someone might get offended.

[BallHawk]

Damn. You must of started drinking at the crack of dawn to come up with that.

[Kiwon]

Gee, I hate it when the weather won't cooperate with the doomsday scenarios.

Two years in a row with very little hurricane activity. When, oh when, will the east coast be under water and I can make some money in my real estate investments?
.................................................. ...........................................

"Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy)."

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

[Tyrone Bigguns]

Gee, I hate it when the weather won't cooperate with the doomsday scenarios.

Two years in a row with very little hurricane activity. When, oh when, will the east coast be under water and I can make some money in my real estate investments?
.................................................. ...........................................

"Unless a dramatic and perhaps historical flurry of activity occurs in the next 9 weeks, 2007 will rank as a historically inactive TC year for the Northern Hemisphere as a whole. During the past 30 years, only 1977, 1981, and 1983 have had less activity to date (January-TODAY, Accumulated Cyclone Energy)."

http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/

Once again, proving you know very little. First, no one predicted a doomsday scenario. Second, hurricane prediction/forecast is done by the gov't.

The IAPC never said there was a clear link between global warming and frequency. “[t]here is no clear trend in the annual numbers [i.e. frequency] of tropical cyclones.” What part of that don't you understand? What the IAPC did address was the clear data that the frequency of storms in the North Atlantic had risen dramatically. And, even then they didn't say it was because of global warming.

What they did address was intensity, it is “more likely than not” (better than even odds) that there is a human contribution to the observed trend of hurricane intensification since the 1970s.

In the North Atlantic, for which we have the best records, there has been a clear increase in the number and intensity of tropical storms and major hurricanes. From 1850-1990, the overall average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. Since 1995, the 10-year average has risen dramatically, with the 1997-2006 average at about 14 tropical storms, including about 8 hurricanes. This increase in frequency correlates strongly with the rise in North Atlantic sea surface temperature, and recent peer-reviewed scientific studies link this temperature increase to global warming.

I'm sure you are also fully versed on the effects of El Nino and la nina and other things that can effect weather.

Oh, btw, perhaps it is time for you to learn the difference tween weather and CLIMATE.

[Kiwon]

"Look, Buzz, an alien!..........BAHHHAH"

[mraynrand]

From 1850-1990, the overall average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. Since 1995, the 10-year average has risen dramatically, with the 1997-2006 average at about 14 tropical storms, including about 8 hurricanes.

There's nothing that science values as much as an N value of 1. One ten year period - and a claim that the "10-year average has risen dramatically." But I'm certain there are plenty of 'peer reviewed' CLIMATE journals that will publish those findings.

[Freak Out]

This is as good as place as any to put this shale oil link...I thought about the market correction post but this works as well. It's to long to cut and paste so here goes:

http://money.cnn.com/2007/10/30/magazines/fortune/Oil_from_stone.fortune/index.htm

[Tyrone Bigguns]

From 1850-1990, the overall average number of tropical storms was about 10, including about 5 hurricanes. Since 1995, the 10-year average has risen dramatically, with the 1997-2006 average at about 14 tropical storms, including about 8 hurricanes.

There's nothing that science values as much as an N value of 1. One ten year period - and a claim that the "10-year average has risen dramatically." But I'm certain there are plenty of 'peer reviewed' CLIMATE journals that will publish those findings.

I quoted those..they are from the scientists, not from me.

More importantly, i didn't address the world, specifically only North Atlantic.