Global Warming Log Out | Topics | Search
Moderators | Edit Profile

Living In Mercer County Forums » Mercer County and beyond » Global Warming « Previous Next »

Author Message
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

SciFacts
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, February 26, 2008 - 08:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Will Al Gore need to return his Nobel Prize and Oscar.

http://www.dailytech.com/Temperature+Monitors+Report+Worldwide+Global+Cooling/ar ticle10866.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, December 11, 2008 - 08:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

More bad news for the snake oil salesman...

http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_i d=2158072e-802a-23ad-45f0-274616db87e6
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, December 28, 2008 - 09:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The good news just keeps coming!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/3982101/2008-was -the-year-man-made-global-warming-was-disproved.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

hell
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 08:08 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

the funny thing is that one year does not make a trend. the overall climate change recorded over the past 20 years is staggering.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, December 29, 2008 - 10:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Unprecedented in the history of man? No.

And now we are entering a cooling trend. Another thing about the 70's that I hated beside the clothes, the inflation, and bad music - the winters in the north east were down right cold. They are coming back and it was all because you bought compact fluorescent bulbs!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Spin
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 01:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

BTW, a second was added to 2008 because the earth's rotation slowed down. I'm sure it's because of all those people moving out of NJ and affecting the tides.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 10:53 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You must look back more than 20 years or 100 years to understand climate history on the earth. Putting aside the "hockey stick" temperature graph that has been fudged, read the article below to show how warm is was before the advent of the automobile and other CO2 generating industries.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 12:58 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Cold & co – the global warming debate is not about ignoring that we have gone through both ice ages and warm periods, or that within a warming trend, you may have cool years and even some snowstroms in the south. The debate does not involve a claim that man is responsible for all weather patterns.

The question we need to be more honest about is whether or not man has changed the environment through our activity, and can we predict future changes. Our consumption of energy over the past century and its corresponding carbon dioxide load can be estimated, as can we estimate how much carbon dioxide we will release in the future at current rates. We know that “greenhouse” gases such as CO2 trap heat. What we don't know is how well the environment can perpetually manage itself and our energy production waste. There is real concern that we have tapped out the oceans ability to absorb CO2, and that atmospheric concentrations will increase at an accelerated rate. We can ignore and mock these possibilities, but I don't think our children will forgive us.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Perfect?
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 02, 2009 - 03:57 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

verde

Maybe you can answer this nagging question since you obviously are such an expert:

What is the ideal temperature for the earth? Was it perfect in prehistoric years (I think the dinos might have a bit of a problem with todays temps-they would be all for global warming!), 1000BC, 1000AD, 1888 or 2008? Until you can answer that question based on facts not feelings, why would we ruin the global economy to stop "man made global warming?"
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 06:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

This article presents an interesting fact about the source of all this CO2:

"What all sides in the debate tacitly admit, but most frequently ignore, particularly the enviro-politicians, is that we live in an age of relative CO2 scarcity. We can be quite certain of this because all of the CO2 that we are putting into the atmosphere originally came from plant and animal life and was sequestered when the animals died."

http://ambit-gambit.nationalforum.com.au/archives/000510.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 01:43 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Perfect – I think you read a lot more into my post then I actually said or believe. I don't blame human activity for everything that is happening but you can't ignore what is happening either, or our track record for large scale environmental damage - Ozone depletion, acid rain, mercury contamination of lakes, over fishing, over farming, stream and river pollution via runoff, PCB's, etc.

No emotion, here is some data -

10yr study shows CO2 absorption declining in oceans
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.stm

NOAA data shows CO2 atmospheric concentrations rising faster
http://www.naturalnews.com/024499.html

The world is not going to end when temperatures rise, but there will be a massive impact on the economy as well as food and water supplies. We will find solutions to adapt, but they might not be cheap, or come as soon as we need them. It could take generations for important ecosystems to adapt on their own.

I love the cascading arguments you hear though

There is no global warming
Well, even if there is we didn't do it
Well, even if we did there is nothing we can do
Well, even if there is it would be too expensive
Well, even if its cheaper in the long run then doing nothing, WE DON'T WANT TO
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 01:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

one more link -
Over one years of local climate data showing steady rise
http://climate.rutgers.edu/stateclim_v1/data/njhisttemp.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, January 03, 2009 - 02:52 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

even if all man generated CO2 sources stopped today, the earth's temperature would not change 0.1 deg F.

This is the only "even if" I need.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 12:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

verde - more good news on the ice front, it's all back.

http://www.eco-can.ca/eco-news/2009/1/5/arctic-ice-growing.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 05, 2009 - 05:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

cold - I never got too excited about the melt off in the first place - it was too far out of line with what was happening elsewhere. Despite the hype, the pace of change is barely perceptible. Strange things happen in normal weather. However, whether ice is melting last year or building up this year, the overall trend remains the same.

As to your suggestion that halting the economy will only reduce temperatures by 0.1F, I have no clue, but I'm more concerned about avoiding an accelerated 10 degree rise if we can make choices to help avoid it. Besides, the environment is not the only issue in pushing alternatives now. We are getting very close to reductions in oil output that will send prices soaring. We need conservation and the development of alternatives now to protect the economy from an even worse situation 10-15 years from now. Just look at what small changes in oil supply and demand have done to prices over the past year, yet long-term, demand continues to increase while reserves fall. If I could sell my house and buy oil futures I think I could retire very nicely at a yung age.

I don't pick up paper off of the ground because it suddenly makes the whole planet clean - I do it because it makes my neighborhood cleaner.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 06, 2009 - 12:11 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

2005 - Bad hurricane year conclusive evidence that global warming is here and man is causing it.

2006 - Slow hurricane year suddenly hurricane intensity and frequency is no longer linked to GW.

Early 2000's ice cap melting conclusive evidence that global warming is here and man is causing it.

2008 - The ice is all back but this is not evidence of the obvious cooling trend.

This is what drives me crazy. In order to make the GW case, they make non-scientific linkages between the world's events and then when those events stop happening this is not proof of the opposite hypothesis.

Should be limit our use of natural resources? Of course, this makes sense and saves me money. But when the biggest proponents of man caused GW are living a lifestyle (private jets, multiple oversized homes, etc.) that they are saying I should not be living, I ignore them.

When the models can explain why the earth was warmer in recent history (Vikings living in Greenland, farming and raising livestock) pre-industrial CO2, I'll start to listen. Until then, I laugh.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brrr!!
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 07, 2009 - 07:36 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Daily Chuckle for all of the Global Warming Afficionados:

Here’s another entry for the annals of noteworthy winter weather: The dogsled race near Frazee, Minn., has been canceled because there’s too much snow.

The Third Crossing Sled Dog Rendezvous, slated for Jan. 23-24, would have been the ninth annual running of the sprint races, which twice were canceled for lack of snow.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 10:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

cold, what degree do you hold? Is it environmental?

You seem to be very smart and know a lot about climate change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 11:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I have more science and math education at the college level than Al Gore. So when will you stop listening to him?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 01:27 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Sorry, but Al Gore does not take any credit for his scientific citations in his award winning documentary. All of the esteemed and well respected scientists are cited.

but you still didn't answer the question, what are YOUR qualifications "Cold", or are you just fond of posting things from the web without scientific back-up.

Even if the story in Gore's moving is not 100% correct, don't you think that pollution has adversely effected the planet or at least the health of the living beings on it?

If you don't think so then why don't you buy a house on Love Canal in upstate NY, they have very good prices.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brrr!!
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 01:44 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

If the world is so polluted, why are we living so much longer than our ancestors?

Obviously Love Canal is the perfect example of unregulated environmental disasters. Good luck finding such a thing happening today in the US (and I don't mean old dumping that is or still needs to be remediated) with all of the environment regulations and oversight. You can't build a shed without getting permits and submitting environmental impact statements.

As to credentials, if Global Warming was such a scientific fact, then why are there many experts in the discipline so sure that man is NOT the major cause of any warming that MIGHT be occurring? There are countless articles being published by mainstream media groups detailing how many scientists are throwing up the GW koolaid and changing their views.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, January 08, 2009 - 08:47 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

When you start to peel away at the GW arguments, the GW adherents suddenly switch gears to straight up pollution or attempt to denigrate the poster as you have done.

Your question has not merit. My argument is merely one of known historical facts (can only History professors discuss historical facts?) and logic (logic discussions can only be done by Logic Majors?).

Try to read this article with an open mind. Forget the Al Gore taunts just think about the discussion of past climate trends in earth's history. How can the lack of current day CO2 result is a warmer climate? This does not require a science or history degree to comprehend. Or maybe I'm taking mine for granted and it does.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/harold-ambler/mr-gore-apology-accepted_b_154982.ht ml

And speaking flat earth, the scientific consensus in the past was the earth is flat. The first person who said it was round was right even though the consensus disagreed.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 09:01 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

yes huffingtonpost, a well respected source of knowledge.

As you choose not to give us your background or education in science or the environment, then you recommendations on "facts" from web articles must be challanged since you have no background or education to determine if the artical is scientifically sound or correct.

BRR!
To answer your question, strong government regulations and public awareness has turn the tide on pollution and the effects on the environment over the past 40 years.

Unfortunately, "Love Canal" type disastors continue today. This was from 2007

Tulsa, OK: Environmentalists are assessing the effects of a 72,000 gallon oil spill in Coffeyville, Kansas, with deep concerns for public safety and grim predictions for the future of the region. Residents in Coffeyville, Kansas, South Coffeyville, Oklahoma and the surrounding areas were severely impacted by the July 1 spill.

Thousands of homes have been condemned due to oil damage. Farmers' crops have been destroyed and the health of livestock has been compromised. Massive "fish kills" have occurred, with hundreds of dead fish washing ashore.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 09:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Ironic, right on your huffingtonpost link, as story about toxic environmental crisis in Tenn.

WASHINGTON — Senate Democrats said Thursday they want stricter rules for toxic ash from coal-fired power plants following a massive spill in Tennessee that has threatened drinking water and caused health fears.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brr!!
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 09:13 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

And Al Gore got his climatology/environmental/science degree from where? Why should we believe what that expert has to say over what is found from credentialed experts? Can we only believe those that you qualify as experts? Where is your degree?

As to Love Canal vs. Kansas-Love Canal was such a tragedy because it was done intentionally and with no regard for the environmental damage that was caused. The incident in Kansas was an accident. A tragedy yes that the environment was adversely impacted, but still an accident. If you believe that we need to stop all accidents, would you be willing to give up your car and walk everywhere since we need to stop all auto accidents?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 09:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Are you incapable of reading an article, engaging in critical thinking, and presenting opposing facts?

You again mixed pollution (Love Canal, Oil Spills, Toxic Ash) which we all agree is bad with CO2 which is the result of using carbon based fuels and breathing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Brr!!
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 09:32 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

OK. Lets agree on one thing. There is still pollution/polluters in the world. It is a very bad thing for people and the environment. All reasonable efforts should be made to halt pollution and to clean up what is already there.

Please stop trying to equate all pollution with CO2 emissions. Spilled oil/toxic chemicals etc... are proven to be extremely harmful. CO2 has not been proven as such. It is a naturally occurring trace element. It has not been proven to be detrimental to the earth (yes yes I know your experts versus mine-we can go back and forth all year on that issue). By comparing toxins/oil etc.. with CO2 you are comparing apples to oranges and it just doesn't work.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Dr. Cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 10:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

If you want I can provide you a distinguished list of scientific citations from Al Gore's documentary.

But first please tell me what makes you and expert. What scientific discipline did you study?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, January 09, 2009 - 11:43 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You answered my question, thanks.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 11, 2009 - 10:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

This is the key paragraph:

"The main flaw in the AGW theory is that its proponents focus on evidence from only the past one thousand years at most, while ignoring the evidence from the past million years -- evidence which is essential for a true understanding of climatology. The data from paleoclimatology provides us with an alternative and more credible explanation for the recent global temperature spike, based on the natural cycle of Ice Age maximums and interglacials."

http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/106922-earth_ice_age-0
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, January 18, 2009 - 06:00 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Dr. Cold must have gone back to GWU (Global Warming University) to study and figure out how to overcomes all the science facts with a new propaganda method.

It see the new administration promise to move fast of global warming legislation. This way when CO2 is not reduced one bit and it get colder they can say the legislation fixed the climate.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 26, 2009 - 06:20 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

It's already working. Not even a week into the new administration and talk about global warming initiatives had resulted in real success on this front.

http://www.arabtimesonline.com/client/pagesdetails.asp?nid=27707&ccid=18
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

hotter than
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, February 12, 2009 - 06:00 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Boy it was pretty warm today and yesterday, I guess global warming is really happening.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

cold
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, February 13, 2009 - 05:57 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Yesteday's high in Trenton was 60 just missing out on the day's record set in 1981 of 61.

Amount of February daily record high's by decade
90's 9
80's 5
70's 5
60's 2
50's 3
40's 2
30's 3

Note that not a single high record has been set in the 00's which coincides with the other worldwide evidence that it is getting cooler in spite of rising CO2 levels.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 479
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Sunday, June 14, 2009 - 11:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

More bad news for CO2 cause global warming.

http://weblogs.wgntv.com/chicago-weather/tom-skilling-blog/2009/06/chilly-junes- 2009-open-one-for-2.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, June 15, 2009 - 08:23 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

global warming is not measured in short term trends, nor does the theory suggest you will never have cold days or even years. Greenhouse gasses from man made activity such as CO2 trap heat, and continue to rise. If CO2 levels were lower, recent temperatures would have been lower.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

A
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, June 15, 2009 - 09:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Personally I am sick and tired of cold, wet days. I think that you can try to spin the so called "climate change" anyway you want, but there are so many conflicting stories-glaciers melting, growing (latest in growth in Argentina), record cold, record heat.

Don't you think that a good part of all of this nonsense is that it is only in the last 50 years or so that accurate information about global fluctuations has been available and only in the last 15 or so that accurate satellite data has been in place. To top that off, there are so many different interpretations of that data, how can any conclusions be deemed the only correct ones?

Think about it. Accurate data didn't exist 100 years ago.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 480
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Tuesday, June 16, 2009 - 05:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Except everytime a new high is set in the summer, the global-warmists point to CO2 as the cause. Katrina and that's summers large number of hurricanes - global warming, shrinking polar ice - global warming. These all being short term trends. However, when the reverse happens - record cold, below average hurricanes, increasing polar ice, suddenly you pull out the long term trend argument.

How convenient.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

sci guy
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - 11:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

There is very accurate data about climate change and it can be traced thousands of years through soil and ice samples. You just need an education to be able to comprehend the studies. It is kind of like people burning scientists at the stake because they said the world was round. There is always a populous too ignorant to understand the wealth of knowledge that surrounds them.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Hurricane Schwartz
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 - 12:24 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Is Al Gore in the house? So buy some iceburgs and put them in North Park in WTS to cool us down.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, June 18, 2009 - 11:05 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

It's really hot in Phoenix today.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, June 30, 2009 - 08:18 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

My utility bill from last month arrived and the average temperature was 7 degrees colder than last year.

Just by passing legislation, global warming has been solved!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, October 25, 2009 - 06:53 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Unfortunately, you can only real journalism from the UK

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/6425269/The-real-climate-change-catastrophe.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 205
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 10:26 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I think we have some pretty good journalism right here in the USA;
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gGAa00xryzkYa7FUhfip-CDPM_tgD9 BIVLKO0

Global warming deniers are one notch above flat-earthers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

A
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 11:42 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Please explain how the global temperatures as measured by 4 different agencies have gone down in the past 10 years if global warming is such an issue? The gains made in the '90s have all disappeared. The last "warmest" year on record was 1998. All of you doom and gloom global warmers should catch up on the latest numbers. I would love you to all just come out and admit that you believe we should drastically cut the population, kill all food animals, kill our pets (yes they exhale too!) and go back to living in caves so we don't have to heat and cool our homes. Should be interesting to see what you feel we should do to keep warm since all of the animals that provided fur to keep early man warm will be gone. All that will be left is the plants. Just the way you want it!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 12:45 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

"Meteorologists on Tuesday morning recorded the lowest ever October temperature in Germany, as the mercury dipped to a chilly -24.3 degrees Celsius in Bavaria’s Berchtesgaden national park."

This would be the lowest temperature ever recorded on any day in Germany for as long as records were kept. This in spite of rising CO2. I would be a denier if I choose to ignore this data point and say the earth is really warming.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 210
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 03:02 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

If you think, or pretend that a single data point in one location on one date has anything to do with global climate change--a measurement of average trends over a period of decades--then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

Since you appreciate British journalism, I point you to: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7074601.stm

Regardless, let's say that human-affected global climate change is disputable and unproven. Does it make sense to treat the atmosphere that we all breathe as a dumping ground for our industrial waste? To ignore the potential consequences of rising sea levels? If we take precautions to avoid damage from global warming, we stand to gain much and lose little. While on the other hand, if we refuse to act, we gain little but stand to lose a lot.

Every child under the age of 12 instinctively knows they should treat the environment with care and respect, because we depend on it for our very lives. Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts and 4-H club members learn to tread lightly and practice conservation and sustainability. The children shall lead.

Support the Climate Change legislation advocated by Lindsey Graham and John Kerry.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

A
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 03:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

"Don't trust anyone over 30"

Adults are stupid, haven't learned anything over the course of their lives. As some ultra liberal sages have said, let the oldsters die, they have lived their lives. Now get out of the way. We won't pay for health care, they aren't worth it.

You can brainwash anyone, but most especially kids into believing whatever you want them to.

By the way stop polluting-stop breathing!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 04:08 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

To take the precautions to avoid a non-problem, we stand to loose much and gain nothing.

CO2, the result of breathing, is a naturally occurring gas not a pollutant or industrial waste. Every 12 yr old knows this.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, October 27, 2009 - 04:51 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

too much of anything is bad.


you can't argue for responsibility with someone on this who has no apparent values when it comes to delivering a healthy planet to our children. Its like asking gang members to run the safety patrol. You end of with solutions like "clean" coal.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 09:27 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Too much freedom is never bad.

What ever happened to Acid Rain? That was big back in the 80's and was going to be the end of us all. Should I still be concerned?

Then it was the Ozone hole. OMG, hair spray, Freon, etc. Didn't the hole fix itself? No freon in the US but the rest of the world is still using it.

Then we were going to run out of crude oil in 30 years - 70's. Should we have panicked then and all gone electric cars? Would have been an economic disaster.

Then we were messing up the climate and were about to enter an ice age - 70's again - not only bad music and clothes. If we all jumped on the ice age bandwagon and listened to the nuts pushing that agenda, we would have implemented meaningless legislation, the earth would have warmed all by itself, and the politicians would have declared success.

This is the problem with pushing a non-science based agenda.

If I'm force to pay money to poor people living is low lying areas that use less carbon than is deemed allowable, when the sea level doesn't rise, I want my money back!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

w
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 09:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

"Non-science based agenda" - sounds like the Bush Administration.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 213
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 03:20 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Ummm....what happened to Acid Rain? I'll tell you. In 1990, the Congress enacted amendments to the Clean Air Act which created a cap-and-trade system that effectively reduced SO2 emissions from the largest power plants. The program statutory goal was reached in 2007, three years ahead of schedule, and the overall costs to business and consumers came in at one-fourth of the original estimate.

The ozone hole? The EPA, during your sainted Ronald Reagan's administration, pushed for international cooperation resulting in 43 countries signing the Montreal Protocol, which phased out ozone-depleting gases.

Had we gone to all electric cars in the 70's, we would not be pouring American blood and treasure into questionable alliances and war in the Middle East now. Crude oil is a non-renewable resource, it may not run out soon, but it eventually will. We need to develop sustainable energy right here in the USA so we can stop funding our enemies.

The "Ice Age Myth" was the result of cherry-picking the opinion of skeptics out of a 1970's article that was actually about the coming challenge of global warming. It was created by people like you who claim that it's cold outside somewhere today, so global warming doesn't exist.

The non-science based agenda is actually yours.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 06:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I just bought a house in Toms River at 30' elevation. It's going to be my shore house when I retire.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 214
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 09:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Glad to hear you are unaffected by the economic downturn. Will you be collecting Social Security and Medicare benefits during your retirement?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, November 08, 2009 - 08:15 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You missed my sarcasm. 30' elevation will be the new shore once enough ice pack melts.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, November 19, 2009 - 05:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Oh no! How can this be! The best take away; ""It cannot be denied that this is one of the hottest issues in the scientific community," says Jochem Marotzke, director of the Max Planck Institute for Meteorology in Hamburg. "We don't really know why this stagnation is taking place at this point."

But meanwhile trust our models.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,662092-2,00.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 538
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 05:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Now we know why the rush to pass Carbon Tax. The CO2 Global warming hoax has been exposed. Mann's hockey stick temperature graph is a fraud based on selected sampling of raw data.

In a sleight of hand worthy of study at Journalism school, the media refuses to cover this story. I like the NY Times approach - since the data and emails were not meant for public consumption, they won't cover the story. They are only interested in getting to the bottom of how they were obtained so they can destroy that individual.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100017393/climategate-the-fina l-nail-in-the-coffin-of-anthropogenic-global-warming/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

pcnot
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 09:12 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091123/ts_afp/australianzealandantarcticaclimateic eberg

stupid is as stupid does
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 539
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Wednesday, November 25, 2009 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The tree ring proxy used to damp out the Medieval Warming period and create the Mann hockey stick temperature spike has been proven to be fabricated. The foundation for AGW is crumbling. Do you care that you have been lied to all these years?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 550
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 09:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

It's settled then, AGW as a theory has been disproved by actually observations and that pesky North Atlantic Oscillation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/globalwarming/6965342/Big-freeze-co uld-signal-global-warming-pause.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 12:31 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

how does a theory on the impact of ocean currents disprove a theory on the impact of accumulation of greenhouse gasses?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Now Who is the Denier?
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 01:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Here you go. You don't even need to follow a link:

The Mini Ice Age Starts Here
By DAVID ROSE
Last updated at 11:17 AM on 10th January 2010

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Centre in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this. The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise. They say that their research shows that much of the warming was caused by oceanic cycles when they were in a ‘warm mode’ as opposed to the present ‘cold mode’.

This challenge to the widespread view that the planet is on the brink of an irreversible catastrophe is all the greater because the scientists could never be described as global warming ‘deniers’ or sceptics.

Here is the link to the rest of the story:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-a ge-starts-here.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Nessie
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, January 11, 2010 - 06:30 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

one week of cold weather does not an ice age make. Next you will be quoting the Daily Mirror!

Did you know there is a loch ness monster too!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 09:46 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

What neither of these address is what happens in when these cycles reverse in 20-30 years. CO2 accumulation from burning fossil fuels is not in a cycle, its just going up.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 551
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 10:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

And while CO2 accumulation is going up, the global temperature is dropping in contradiction with the AGW theory and models - that's the problem.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

verde
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 10:56 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

are you a believer that greenhouse gases do not create a greenhouse effect? If not, then this we just need a math discussion.

for the sake of argument - assume the top line represents the greenhouse affect on temperature of adding successive concentrations of CO2. Each year adds a tenth of a degree. The second line represents a cycle like your article suggests above. It starts neutral, gets colder, warms, then ends up neutral again eventually. The last line represents the cumulative effect of the first two factors. The temperate starts high, goes low, and then ends up with a net impact of +.9 That is the meat of the theory. Long term, we have a big problem with CO2 that a 20 year cooling cycle will not change. In those bad periods at the tops of the cycles, we could have some big problems. Its fair to debate what those top temps will be and when they will occur, and to mock scientist who miss large cycles, but you still have to recon with the long term net impact of man made CO2. Greenhouse gases raise the tops of those cycles, and the recent cycle maximums have produced problems that we might want to do something about so they are not worse in the future.



.1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1 + .1

.0 - .2 - .4 - .2 - .0 + .2 + .4 + .2 + .0

{.1} {.0} {-.3} {-.4} {-.3} {.0} {.5} {.8} {.9}
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 552
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Tuesday, January 12, 2010 - 01:42 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

This is not the AGW theory. AGW proposes that temperature and CO2 concentrations move in lock step and man made CO2 is the dominant force in temperature increases.

If you could do the impossible, stop all man made CO2, how much colder would it be right now?

By having the North Atlantic Oscillation change the temperature as it has done, we see other factors can have a measurable visible affect on the earth temps. The same cannot be said for AGW.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

settled
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, January 19, 2010 - 01:12 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

So the science is settled then, AGW theory has been debunked, outstanding.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Melting?
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 09:15 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

And here is another report that the global warming alarmists will do or say anything and make up so called "evidence" using no facts or bogus data to advance their opinion. Of course you won't see this retraction in any main stream media outlets in the US, but I guarantee that if you asked the global warming enthusiasts, they will tell you that of course the Himalayan Glacier is melting!

A WARNING that climate change will melt most of the Himalayan glaciers by 2035 is likely to be retracted after a series of scientific blunders by the United Nations body that issued it.

Two years ago the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issued a benchmark report that was claimed to incorporate the latest and most detailed research into the impact of global warming. A central claim was the world's glaciers were melting so fast that those in the Himalayas could vanish by 2035.

In the past few days the scientists behind the warning have admitted that it was based on a news story in the New Scientist, a popular science journal, published eight years before the IPCC's 2007 report.

It has also emerged that the New Scientist report was itself based on a short telephone interview with Syed Hasnain, a little-known Indian scientist then based at Jawaharlal Nehru University in Delhi.

Hasnain has since admitted that the claim was "speculation" and was not supported by any formal research. If confirmed it would be one of the most serious failures yet seen in climate research. The IPCC was set up precisely to ensure that world leaders had the best possible scientific advice on climate change.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

iammelting
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 02:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

and where are your facts and citations to back up your info???
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Melting?
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, January 20, 2010 - 03:04 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Here you go-some honest reporting from the UK and a very reputable source. sorry if you don't like the message, but don't shoot the messenger!

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6991177.ece
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

not warming
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, February 15, 2010 - 05:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The good news in the global warming arena just keeps coming!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment- scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 225
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 12:05 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

But, YOU know better than 97% of actively-publishing climate scientists in peer-reviewed journals, right?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_consensus
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

No Wiki Here
Unregistered User
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 12:39 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Hey New-Did you know that the kids in Rville schools are not allowed to use Wikipediea as a source? It in not fact checked and contains a lot of erroneous info!

Also-who pays the climate scientists for their work? Grants. If all of a sudden there was no interest in global warming/climate change, lots of these folks would be out of a job. Can you say job security? Why else would they have faked/hidden so much data?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 582
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 01:07 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Welcome back!

The house of cards continues to fall - Glaciers, snow cover, sea level rise, temperature, and the email scandal (including the strategy to subvert the peer review process).

Keep clinging..
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 228
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 07:16 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Please...you're so ridiculous. Yes, thousands of scientists, institutions, and governments are all wrapped up in a massive conspiracy in order to get a paycheck.
You want market forces to rule everything, but you don't like Wikipedia.
I laugh at you like I would at flat-earthers.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 585
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 08:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Back in the day, the flat-earthers were the consensus.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 231
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, February 23, 2010 - 09:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Yup, the consensus of the uneducated.
Still laughing...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 587
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 05:48 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

IPCC report on glacier's melting - wrong
IPCC report on sea level rise - wrong
IPCC report on temperature rise as a function of atmospheric CO2 - wrong

I would be un-educated if I ignored these facts.
But, keep laughing - ignorance is bliss.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

Elvis
Unregistered User
Posted on Wednesday, February 24, 2010 - 09:24 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

That is why she can only find articles in non-reputable non-scientific publications. I think she reads the Globe and the Star. Hey Elivs was at the WaWa last night!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 588
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 28, 2010 - 08:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

When it comes to global warming, I'd believe Elvis before the "consensus". Fear not, Al Gore has come out of hiding and is featured in today's NY Times op-ed.

In spite of record cold in North America and Europe, we have reports from those that have lied to us that January was the second hottest in the last 130 years. This disagrees with Dr. Jones's admission "no statistically significant warming in the past 15 years". I'm going to assume he has been voted out of the consensus tribe.

First, eventually all the doom and gloom reports are going to have to actually come with high temperature records. It can't get warmer without is actually getting warmer.

Second, even if this was the 2nd warmest January in the past 130 years, how does this prove CO2 causes Global Warming. 130 years is such a short timeline on a planet that has gone through ice ages and planet wide tropical forests.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

truth
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 11:58 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

more trouble caused by global warming

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20100307/sc_mcclatchy/3444187
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 596
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Monday, March 08, 2010 - 05:01 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

GW glacier's melting - wrong
GW sea level rise - wrong
temperature rise as a function of atmospheric CO2 - wrong
GW causes more deadly and frequent hurricanes - wrong

Give it a few months and the worried scientists will have to back track on GW causes low oxygen in the ocean as well.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

educated truth
Unregistered User
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 10:36 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Just curious Notpc, where did you study earth science and what degree to you hold?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

notPC
Registered User
Username: Notpc

Post Number: 601
Registered: 04-2008
Posted on Saturday, March 13, 2010 - 11:28 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

The other day, I went to Dr. Smith who said I needed my appendix removed. "I'm going to charge you a ton of money and make a tidy profit taking out your appendix". To which I replied, "Dr, I feel fine. I think I will get a second opinion from Dr. Jones". He answered "Where do you get the nerve!. I am a doctor and been through medical school, and you are just a peon. Besides, Dr. Jones is an appendix denier!". "The consensus here in my office is you need your appendix removed now before it expand to the size of a bowling ball."

The moral of the story is your "scientists" lied to you.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 281
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Thursday, July 08, 2010 - 02:34 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Hey, where are all the people who claimed that Global Warming was a hoax when it was cold in the winter, now that it has been over 100 degrees for a few days?

Three independent investigations have now concluded that despite the "Climategate" email controversy, the science of the Climatic Research Council was sound.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703636404575352623519599344.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 81
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 06:17 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You must be very young. It's the summer and it gets hot.

Here is a link to temperature records by day in July which your can read at your leisure. The record temperature of 105 deg F was set in 1936. The second highest July temperature of 104 deg F was set in 1936. There are 13 days in July with a record high of 100 or above scattered across the 1900's. In order for global warming to occur, it is going to actually have to get warmer out. In order for the sea levels to rise, they are going to actually have to rise.

http://www.intellicast.com/Local/History.aspx?location=USNJ9560

Regarding the "investigation":

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/100046524/climategate-reinstating -phil-jones-is-good-news-the-cru-brand-remains-toxic/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 283
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 11:39 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I only wish I were very young.

Single day temperature records have nothing to do with it. I was just joking about the pundits (like one Sean H.) who said the blizzards of last winter proved that global warming didn't exist.

The vast weight of scientific evidence and opinion is settled on one side of this theory, much like it is for Darwinian evolution.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 82
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 02:38 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You can stick your fingers in your ears and hum "consensus" all you want but eventually it will have to get warmer for their to be global warming.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 284
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 03:03 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Yawn.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 83
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 05:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Greenland before AGW.

http://www.archaeology.org/online/features/greenland/
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

shiver
Unregistered User
Posted on Friday, July 09, 2010 - 06:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Great points UWB. I always wondered how much of global warming is media hype.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 84
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 12:35 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

new2 - they are coming for your central AC. You gonna help save the planet and give it up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/09/AR2010070902341_ pf.html
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 285
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 04:23 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Really? Who are "they", who are coming for it? The Washington Post? The electric utility?

I think the men in the white coats are coming for you!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 85
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Monday, July 12, 2010 - 05:17 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I'll take that as a no. You really don't want to save the planet if it requires you to sweat.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 286
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 10:51 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You don't really have any idea what I do, so don't presume to tell me what I want or don't want.

You just said it would actually "have to get warmer for their (sic) to be global warming".

Here are some bullets from the recent NOAA report;

# The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for May 2010 was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 14.8°C (58.6°F). This is the warmest such value on record since 1880.
# For March–May 2010, the combined global land and ocean surface temperature was 14.4°C (58.0°F) — the warmest March-May on record. This value is 0.73°C (1.31°F) above the 20th century average.
# The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for January–May 2010 was the warmest on record. The year-to-date period was 0.68°C (1.22°F) warmer than the 20th century average.
# The worldwide ocean surface temperature for May 2010 was the second warmest May on record, behind 1998, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.3°C (61.3°F).
# The seasonal (March–May 2010) worldwide ocean surface temperature was the second warmest such period on record, 0.55°C (0.99°F) above the 20th century average of 16.1°C (61.0°F).
# The global land surface temperatures for May and the March–May period were the warmest on record, at 1.04°C (1.87°F) and 1.22°C (2.20°F) above the 20th century average, respectively.
# In the Northern Hemisphere, both the May 2010 average temperature for land areas, and the hemisphere as a whole (land and ocean surface combined), represented the warmest May on record. The Northern Hemisphere ocean temperature was the second warmest May on record. The average combined land and ocean surface temperature for the Northern Hemisphere was also record warmest for the March–May period.

NOAA is not a partisan think-tank, or a blogger or pundit, it is the organization responsible for measuring, analyzing, and reporting on the climate.

And while I don't believe that short-term trends actually prove the long-term case, your quoting of single day values and general disinformation needs addressing.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 86
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 12:50 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

"second warmest May on record", "warmest on record"

When did the record start? That's the problem with AGW adherents making the claim that something is a warm record when the records NOAA is posting are records since 1880. That's not very long in climate time. Also, now that satellites can cover much of the earth's surface making complete temperature measurements, older incomplete direct observations (like from 1880) are being filled in by making numbers up. How does one know the temperature of say the middle of the Pacific ocean in 1880 based on a temperature sample in say Hawaii? What if the estimated number was on the low side? This would create what appeared to be global warming where there is none.

I posted a link to a article making the case that air conditioning causes global warming and since in the not too distant past, we didn't have AC, a source of much of our electricity usage, we could fix this by turning off our AC. I asked you if you would turn off your AC and you didn't answer but made disparaging remarks about the post. I make no presumption about what you do or what you want which is why I asked if your were going to turn off your AC. To me this is important when global warming adherents are making the case for other to change their lifestyle but are not willing to do so themselves.

BTW - this is a very interesting published article. You can skip right to the concluding remarks starting on page 12 for the gist of the authors hypothesis. The other interesting nugget is atmospheric CO2 increases AFTER the oceans warm as they are less able to hold CO2.

http://www.probeinternational.org/Qing-Bin%20Lu%20on%20CFCs%20and%20Global%20Coo ling.pdf

I did my part by swapping out my CFC using SEER 10 A/C compressor with a SEER 15 non-CFC using compressor.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 287
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 01:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Well, see...you didn't ask if I would turn off my AC, you said that a mysterious "they" were coming to take it away from me.

I found the article itself interesting and worthy of consideration. But you clearly presumed that I would not make any personal sacrifice - which you have no way of knowing.

I will read the article you linked to when I have time to understand it. And thanks for your contribution in upgrading your A/C compressor, but...wouldn't you say that's a bit disingenuous, considering all new units are now non-CFC as required by law?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 87
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 - 03:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I could have kept using the old one.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 203
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Tuesday, November 16, 2010 - 11:03 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Global warming causes colder winters. Now it doesn't even have to get warmer for their to be global warming!

http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/LDE6AF1I1.htm
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 258
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Saturday, February 26, 2011 - 08:02 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Another warming caused cold updated.

SAN FRANCISCO — As a Pacific storm coincided with a blast of cold Canadian air over their fair city, residents here saw snow late Friday, a long-absent visitor for a city accustomed to fog, sweater-weather and other nearly bone-chilling accoutrements.

Predictions had called for the possibility of the first significant snowfall in San Francisco since February 1976, when all of an inch fell, according to the National Weather Service. And just before midnight, several high-lying city neighborhoods, including Twin Peaks, at some 900 feet, reported light snowfall.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2Rville
Registered User
Username: New2rville

Post Number: 337
Registered: 09-2008
Posted on Sunday, February 27, 2011 - 10:28 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Still don't get the difference between weather and climate, huh? You bore me...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 260
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 05:49 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Yet you keep coming back...
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

a fan
Unregistered User
Posted on Monday, February 28, 2011 - 10:47 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

You don't bore me UWB, very interesting reading. Not sure why New2 needs to bicker on here. We all can choose not read something if we don't, right?
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

New2 Fan
Unregistered User
Posted on Thursday, March 03, 2011 - 06:54 pm:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

Keep it up New2. Someone has to tell the truth here!
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 262
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Friday, March 04, 2011 - 06:06 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

How about this for a truth

According to the Office of the NJ State Climatologist, the NJ statewide mean temperature in 2010 was 2.1 deg F higher that the statewide mean between the 30 year period of 1971-2000 which surprisingly is the same number as 1949. For the purpose of this exercise, I'm not even going to argue the selective choice of this 30 year period. Now, let's say you wake up tomorrow and all sources of man made CO2 worldwide cease and a large CO2 scrubbing machine pulled out all the man made CO2 from the atmosphere. If I accept the Global Warming premise, it would have been 2.1 deg F colder on average in NJ in 2010.

Now think about what I just said. Every source of man made C02 ceasing to exist and a global CO2 scrubber.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

UWB
Registered User
Username: Uwb

Post Number: 263
Registered: 05-2010
Posted on Friday, March 04, 2011 - 07:37 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

I'll pile on.

Back in 2001, when the science was settled on GW, the IPCC 3rd Assessment report said "Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms".

Fast forward to 2009/2010 and the latest reports say GW is causing this years heavy snow.

This would make the science less than settled.
Top of pagePrevious messageNext messageBottom of page Link to this message

where did the warming go
Unregistered User
Posted on Sunday, October 30, 2011 - 06:10 am:   Edit Post Delete Post    Admin only

"Philadelphia was seeing mostly rain, but what snow fell coated downtown roofs in white. The city was expected to get 1 to 3 inches, its first measurable October snow since 1979, with a bit more in some suburbs, meteorologist Mitchell Gaines said."

Add Your Message Here
Posting is currently disabled in this topic. Contact your discussion moderator for more information.

Topics | Last Day | Last Week | Tree View | Search | Help/Instructions | Program Credits Administration