Global Warming my butt
- Thread starter garn91
- Start date
Not a good weekend for the Florida and Texas recruits to be comming in. They might think it's like this all the time.
So much for the "Save a Tree, Hug a Whale" convention in Geneva about global warming causing melting polar ice caps and glaciers by 2100. We're already forming new ones here in the midwest!:yes4lo:
Their responses to the cold and snow can be pretty comical. I don't remember exactly what NU WR Maurice Purify said about the cold & snow when he first came to Lincoln, but it was something like he thought snow grew up out of the ground :laugh8kb:
I tell you though when we had those really nice temps back in November and December including a thunderstorm or 2 in December I believe I wondered about the whole global warming thing. Then 2007 rolls around and we get this cold and I concluded that it's still a bunch of BS.
It's nothing more than cyclical. I just read on NOAA's website, that SE South Dakota and NW Iowa is going to see the coldest weather in 10 years with several consecutive days of temps at or below zero.
I'm kinda geeky when it comes to weather, did some looking and it all balances out with temps above or below normal. Sept & Oct were below normal while Nov & Dec were above normal. 6-10 & 8-14 day long range both call for below normal temps.
Scientists trying to predict weather and climate conditions 100 years from now IMO has the same credibility as Nostradameus predicting the end of the world. We've been spitting greenhouse gasses in the air for 75 years and the average temp has gone up 1 degree. Wow. Shouldn't we be something like 5-10 degrees warmer as a planet after the industrial revolution, when NO ONE cared about what was spat into the atmosphere? Who's to say that 25 years from now we begin a downward trend that cools us a degree or two in the climate. Will anyone be worried about global warming then?
The global warming arguement is based on the entire year's weather not anomolies in climate. While we may be having the coldest tems in 10 years the rest of the year may be above normal. The last 2 years were the wrmest in history. I don't know where I stand on the issue. Al Snore made some compelling arguements backed by facts, so I guess the best thing that comes from talking about global warming is that at least we think about energy consumption and what we are putting into the atmosphere.
One week does not signify a trend in global weather. The fact remains that the past 10-20 winters have been milder in the midwest, and the polar ice cap is shrinking. Whether that is a permanent trend or a part of a cyclic event that occours every 10,000 years or so has not been determined. Nor will it be settled in our lifetime.
I agree. The two sides - global warming believers and then the non-believers - are on two very opposite ends of the spectrum.
In reality, from where I can see it - we're somewhere in the middle. It's not near as bad as some folks want us to believe and it is taking place unlike what others may want us to think.
Regardless, everyone aught to be a bit more concerned with keeping the place we call home cleaner and safer for generations to come.
It's global warming but it can affect weather patterns that might cause it to be colder somewhere locally. Same thing for some of the freak snowstorms that blew through certain parts of the country earlier this year.
But yeah, it's really freaking cold right now.
But yeah, it's really freaking cold right now.
My position on global warming is this: We've been keeping weather recordings for only like 100 years now. It's way too hard to be making judgements about what "normal" is for weather across the globe. When you only have so many years to compare to, it's easy to say "the average temperature has risen 1 degree!!", but if you think about it, it wouldn't be too hard to change an average when the data set isn't that big to begin with.
I think that what we've been seeing in a "warming trend" is nothing more than random fluctuations in global patterns that occur every century. Yes, it is possible that pollution has slightly altered temperatures, but to say that it is the only cause for the warming trend and that the end of the world is near is a bunch of baloney. I don't but into it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control pollution, because we should.
Global warming is a political debate and nothing more. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it anytime soon.
I think that what we've been seeing in a "warming trend" is nothing more than random fluctuations in global patterns that occur every century. Yes, it is possible that pollution has slightly altered temperatures, but to say that it is the only cause for the warming trend and that the end of the world is near is a bunch of baloney. I don't but into it, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to control pollution, because we should.
Global warming is a political debate and nothing more. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it anytime soon.
So the fact that every top scientist in this field has concluded that humans ARE causing globbal warming doesn't have you people convinced? I'm sure those who think it is "no big deal" know better than those in the scientific community who study this everyday.
1. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. More than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.†(Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Surveys of climatologists show similar skepticism.
Taken from: Eight Reasons to End the Scam
Source: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=11548
Yikes, I didn't attend for this to turn into an eposide of Bill Nye the Science Guy. I just found it ironic that the day all of this global warming stuff is released, the coldest air of the winter so far moves in.
10 years or so ago, after my step-mom's dad passed away, we were clearing out some boxes and this guy kept a daily journal of what the weather was like, what he did on a particular day, etc. After going through some of those, in SW Iowa, winters back in the 50's and 60's were alot like winters of today with very mild stretches and very cold stretches. One thing that made winters more harsh back in the day, was lack of equipment and technology (snow removal, chemicals to deice, etc.)
10 years or so ago, after my step-mom's dad passed away, we were clearing out some boxes and this guy kept a daily journal of what the weather was like, what he did on a particular day, etc. After going through some of those, in SW Iowa, winters back in the 50's and 60's were alot like winters of today with very mild stretches and very cold stretches. One thing that made winters more harsh back in the day, was lack of equipment and technology (snow removal, chemicals to deice, etc.)
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
Here's a good article to read. If you read the text of the statement, it says that human activity likely aggravates global warming, which strongly infers that it is happening with or without us.
Home
Prions
Relativity
Global Warming
Big Bang Theory
Ice Ages
Asteroid
ATP
Intelligent Design
Heart
Cancer
Geology
Earth's Core
Tornadoes
Windmills
Transgenic Crops
Fluoride
Science is Broken
Global Warming
To Narrative Page
The cause is oceans heating, not greenhouse gases.
1. How could oceans be heating so much, and the air so little, if carbon dioxide were the cause?</B>
2. All ice ages begin exactly as the present warming of the globe, and the process has nothing to do with carbon dioxide.
3. There is not a scientifically valid mechanism for carbon dioxide causing global warming. A lot of scientists tried to say so, but they were silenced by frauds. Narrative Page
4. The reason why CO2 levels in the atmosphere have been increasing is because warmer oceans release more.
5. The hottest years on record are localized effects due to ice melting in the Arctic plus unrelated high pressure parked over the Rockies. The total global average air temperature, as measured by satellite, is slight cooling due to increased cloud cover.
6. Everything in the atmosphere is a greenhouse gas including water vapor which is a hundred times more prevalent than carbon dioxide. People are given the false impression that it's all about CO2.
7. The latest claim is that humans are putting 8.3 giga tons of carbon into the air per year, which is one percent of the 750 giga tons in the air. If one percent per year were relevant, natural variations would have been catastrophic long ago.
8. The amount of CO2 presently in the air absorbs nearly all available radiation at its peaks of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; so more CO2 cannot absorb more radiation. details
9. The oceans regulate CO2 in the atmosphere to the minutest detail, as indicated by an El Nino in the Pacific Ocean, which causes CO2 measurements in the air to increase, and then they renormalize when the El Nino disappears. External Link
10. The oceans are heating up, and the atmosphere is not. The result is polar ice caps melting and increased rainfall. This points to a hot spot in the earth's core heating the oceans, not human activity.
Nature Study
Same at Greenland
Ice Age Theory.
11. Measurements show ice increasing over land, but not over oceans, at Antarctica and Greenland due to increased precipitation as snowfall. This means sea levels will soon be falling, not rising.
12. Science is not an opinion, it's a measurement. But no one is describing the measurements which have been solidifying the claim that humans cause global warming through carbon dioxide, because there is none. Solidifying opinions without measurements is propaganda, not science. Examples
13. Seventeen thousand scientists signed a petition saying humans producing carbon dioxide is not the cause of global warming. External Link
[FONT=Verdana, Arial]
Ocean Temperatures over 800,000 Years.
Each cycle is an ice age.
source one
source two
We are presenetly above the dotted line on the right side. The oceans have been heating continuously since the last ice age.
Summary
Global warming is occurring due to oceans heating, not greenhouse gases. The oceans are heating due to hot spots rotating in the earth's core, which is the cause of ice ages.
Oceans regulate the amount of CO2 in the air, as indicated by the chemistry and the stability over time at extremely low levels. Otherwise there would a large amount in the air, and it would fluctuate drastically (like smog does).
Principles of chemistry indicate that regulation by oceans must be absolute. CO2 disolving in water establishes an equilibrium. Equilibrium means absolute regulation.
Production and sequestration of CO2 are totally irrelevant, because they do not regulate. They would leave excessive and highly varied amounts in the air, if oceans were not regulating.
Main Points
So-called greenhouse gases have no ability to produce global warming.
1) At most, only 3% of the CO2 in the air results from human activity. Each year, humans add 1% as much CO2 to the air as already there. Nature cannot be tuned to such a miniscule amount.
2) Carbon dioxide is already aborbing all available radiation at its peaks of 2.7, 4.3 and 15 µM; and most of it within 10 meters of distance. Changing the amount of CO2 can only change the distance, not total heat. details
3) The atmosphere is heated by conduction and convection from the surface, but propagandist imply that only radiation is involved.
4) The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is not determined by production, because it is regulated by the oceans. Cold oceans absorbs more, and warm oceans release more back into the atmosphere.
5) The 30% increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past century indicates oceans heating (due to other causes), and it is too minuscule to be relevant. It is an indicator, not cause, of oceans heating.
6) Air has a much lower heat capacity than water, which means oceans can heat the air, but the air cannot significantly heat the oceans. The oceans are said to have a heat capacity of 1,000 times that of the atmosphere.
7) Water in the air is a greenhouse gas which swamps the others. It is about a hundred times more prevalent than CO2 in clear air, and much more significant on a cloudy day.
8) When el Nino heats the Pacific, CO2 increases in the atmosphere; and after El Nino, it normalizes. It wouldn't normalize if oceans were not reabsorbing the CO2. And if oceans can reabsorb that CO2, they can absorb any other CO2.
9) Global warming has been continuous for about 20,000 years, as always occurs between ice ages, not just the past 150 years which propagandists refer to.
10) Plants need more CO2 to grow on. Their growth increases substantially when more CO2 is provided. The oceans had to be large to aquify the planet, but then they absorbed too much CO2 for good plant growth.
Explanations
Carbon dioxide is called a greenhouse gas because it absorbs infrared radiation, which the earth and atmosphere emit, and converts it into heat. The suns radiation is not involved, because CO2 and most of the atmosphere are transparent gases which do not absorb visible light.
The primary fallacy of this whole issue is the assumption that more CO2 means more heat. It doesn't. More CO2 changes the distance of absorption but not the heat. The reason is explained on the Nitty Gritty Page.
About the first ten percent of the CO2 adds some heat to the atmosphere, and the rest shortens the distance of absorption, while convectional currents mix the results.
If more CO2 were relevant, the "more" would also apply to water vapor. Water vapor is a greenhouse gas which is far more significant than carbon dioxide. There is about a hundred times as much of it in the air, depending upon humidity, and it has a broader absorption spectrum. So it swamps the significance of carbon dioxide.
Since there is about 100 times as much water vapor in the air as CO2, and its absorption bands are at least 3 times wider, it produces 300 times as much of a greenhouse effect as CO2. Even ignoring the methane, nitrous oxide, etc., this means CO2 would produce no more than 0.33% of the greenhouse effect (If the concept of "more" were relevant.). Since both sides agree that the greenhouse effect adds 33°C of heat to the earth, CO2 would not add more than 0.11°C (which is 33 divided by 300).
On top of that, humans are only responsible for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. This means the 0.11°C must be multiplied times 0.03 to get 0.0033°C as the maximum possible human addition of heat to the atmosphere through CO2, when compared to water vapor.
Yet propagandists talk about 3-6°C increase in air temperature (in the future) due human input of CO2. They aren't being honest. They rationalize away the effects of water vapor and rationalize into existence the effects of CO2. There are overriding effects which make their numbers meaningless. It isn't that they gets the numbers wrong; it's that they have no stable basis for getting any numbers which have any meaning in drawing conclusions. Out of a black box of nonsense, they get any numbers they want.
(For several years, both sides agreed that humans were responsible for 3% of the CO2 in the atmosphere. But recently, propagandists have been scrambling the numbers, feeling they can get by with anything, having convinced the public that there is a problem. Recently, some have been saying that humans are responsible for 17% of the CO2. If they were previously wrong by 600%, what are their numbers worth? Even with this number, the human contribution to heat in the atmosphere would not be more than 0.019°C, when considering water vapor with the assumption that more is relevant.) Scientists cannot easily determine if clouds do more cooling due to reflection of radiation from the sun or more heating due to trapping of heat after it gets to the earth. But measurements indicate more cooling than heating. And measurements show that there are more clouds and precipition in recent times. Clouds totally swamp any effect by CO2.
Concerning carbon dioxide, the amount in the air is unrelated to the amount produced. Ocean temperatures determine how much is in the air. This is because an equilibrium is created at the ocean surface, and it regulates the amount in the air. So if there is more carbon dioxide in the air, it means ocean surfaces are warming.
Propagandists sometimes claim that the oceans are not absorbing the CO2 that humans create. If not, then the oceans are not in equilibrium. If the oceans are not in equilibrium, humans are in big trouble, because there is 200 times as much CO2 in the surface oceans and 7,000 times as much in the deep oceans compared to the amount humans produce. A nonsteady state for such large quantities would swamp the atmospheric effects. The fact that there is so little variation in atmospheric CO2 over the centuries demonstrates that it is regulated. And most importantly, the science of the subject states that absorption of gases by liquids is controlled by concentrations and achieves a steady state.
Then there is the implication that whatever oceans do, it is not fast enough to keep up with human activity. The yearly exchange rate for CO2 by oceans is said to be 16 times the amount humans produce. This means all of the CO2 humans produce in one year could be absorbed by the oceans in 23 days (while it has 365 days to do it).
Relating global warming to weather reports is absurd, because only the air temperature is being measured. But air has a very low heat capacity, and it is a very small percent of the surface mass of the earth. To determine global warming, temperatures would need to be measured for the water, rocks and soil—not the atmosphere.
Only satellites can measure atmospheric temperatures, because they average a large area, while thermometers only measure a few cubic inches of air. Satellite measurements show the air to be cooling slightly due to increased cloud cover which reflects away the suns energy.
In fact, particulate pollution (not CO2) is dimming the sun's energy by increasing the reflectivity of clouds and creating an atmospheric cooling effect equal to 1.5 watts per square meter on the earth's surface, which has been measured. Proponents of the greenhouse effect say that the cooling is over-ridden by CO2 which produces a heating effect of 2.8 watts per square meter; but they cannot measure that effect; they contrive it through computer models. Evidence that they are wrong is that the cooling effect is preventing an equatorial band of moisture from migrating north in the usual way. Nature says the air is cooling, not heating.
Computer models are sometimes used in an attempt to translate weather reports into global warming; but they are totally discredited at the scientific level. The truth about computer models is "garbage in, garbage out."
Measurements of ice at the South Pole show that the ice is thinning where it is over water but thickening where over land. This means oceans are heating up; and the result is increased evaporation and precipitation resulting in more ice accumulating over land. An increase in ice accumulation has also been found over Greenland.
Another indication of ocean temperatures increasing is increased rainfall in the upper plains over the past twenty years. A few years ago, Chicago was flooding due to a rise in Lake Michigan; and another canal had to be built around Niagara Falls to cope with it. The humid air originates in the Pacific Ocean, which must be getting warmer.
What then is the cause of oceans heating? The fact that the past ten ice ages have been precisely cycling at about 100,000 year intervals indicates that the cause is not environmental, which would be highly variable. The most logical explanation is that hot spots rotate in the earth's core. It is logical that there would be hot spots in the earth's core and that they would be in motion. Fluids of any size are never homogeneous in temperature. Heat loss and convection result in hotter areas and colder areas in large fluids, and they move around due to gravity acting upon the differential densities.
Based upon previous cycles, the next ice age cycle is due to begin a cool-down any time, which means within the next few hundred years. The way ice ages work is that heat-up of the oceans causes melting of ice caps at the poles and increased precipitation everywhere. This results is water being drawn out of the oceans and accumulating on land as ice. The see level gets about 400 feet lower over about 80 thousand years. Whether the oceans actually heat up for 80 thousand years, or whether the heat up of the oceans is just a trigger mechanism isn't clear.
Another possible explanation, which was common several decades ago, is that ice at the poles melts in a cyclic manner. This theory is still plausible and consistent with evidence. It could be ice melting at the poles which is causing the oceans to heat up. Regardless, it is the oceans heating, not the atmosphere; and the results have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gasses.
Credible scientists know that humans are not the cause of so-called global warming. A few years ago, seventeen thousand of them signed a petition saying humans are not the cause. But since them, propagandists in the media, organizations and bureaucracies convinced the public that it is a scientific fact. Now, scientists dare not speak out, or they could lose their jobs. Only the ones who claim humans are the cause get grants.
Propaganda at Every Turn
Look at how this subject is explained on the web site of the Union of Concerned Scientists. It says this:
The "greenhouse effect" refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun's enormous energy warms the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C),---
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.---we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air. link (See FAQ #1)
Now read the same thing described more honestly:
The "greenhouse effect" refers to the natural phenomenon that keeps the Earth in a temperature range that allows life to flourish. The sun's enormous energy warms the Earth's surface and its atmosphere. As this energy radiates back toward space as heat, a portion is absorbed by a delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which constitute only about 0.05% of the atmosphere. When combined with the other 99.95% of the atmosphere (mostly nitrogen and oxygen), the total creates an insulating layer. With the temperature control of the greenhouse effect, the Earth has an average surface temperature of 59°F (15°C). Without it, the average surface temperature would be 0°F (-18°C),---
Scientists have concluded that human activities are contributing to global warming by adding large amounts of heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere.---we release carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the air.
They pulled a switcharoo in their description. It is the total atmosphere which heats the planet 59°F (33°C), while they say a "delicate balance of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere—among them carbon dioxide and methane—which creates an insulating layer."
Not being said by the propagandists is that conduction and convection are involved in the "greenhouse effect," while carbon dioxide is about radiation only. Another misrepresentation is omitting water vapor, which is similar to CO2 in its absorption characteristics, and it is often a hundred times more prevalent.
Here's a news article from Nature saying the part of Antarctica which is over land is acquiring more ice, while the part which is over the ocean is thinning. The reason is because the oceans melt the ice from beneath, but the air is not melting the ice from above, while warmer oceans produce more precipitation.
news on ice sheets
same at Greenland
An expert tried to finesse it saying it is what was expected, but it contradicts the usual theory and substantiates my claim that it is the oceans which are heating, not the air. It contradicts the claim that greenhouse gasses are the cause. The greenhouse gasses are in the air, not the oceans. They heat the air, not the oceans.
Some Data
"Total human CO2 emissions primarily from use of coal, oil, and natural gas and the production of cement are currently about 5.5 GT C per year (giga tons of carbon per year).
To put these figures in perspective, it is estimated that the atmosphere contains 750 Gt C; the surface ocean contains 1,000 Gt C; vegetation, soils, and detritus contain 2,200 Gt C; and the intermediate and deep oceans contain 38,000 Gt C. Each year, the surface ocean and atmosphere exchange an estimated 90 Gt C; vegetation and the atmosphere, 60 Gt C; marine biota and the surface ocean, 50 Gt C; and the surface ocean and the intermediate and deep oceans, 100 Gt C."
Reference:
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Narrative Page
The future, as an Ice Age Begins
Nitty Gritty Perspective—Absorption Spectrum
The Acid in the Ocean Fraud
external links:
Scientists Misrepresented
CO2 Absorption at 15 µM
More Oceans Heating
temperature graphs through ice ages
Interview of Fred Singer
Fred Singer's Web Site
Scientists' Review of Literature
Temperature Measurements
CO2 Science Org
El Nino and CO2
Political Criticism. May 24, 2006
Raw Data on CO2 in Air
Solar energy as Cause
Tilt in Earth's Orbit
Home
[/FONT]
Last edited:
Coldest air of this winter - but it's not much compared to what we've gotten in the past.
The last football game that I attended where I just froze my butt off was the 2002 UConn game. And I think part of that was its outcome.
Remember how nice it was for the Colorado game in '05? That almost never would happen. Yet it wasn't too cold of a day when we faced Mizzu this year.
We still get some nasty stuff in January/February - but that used to start earlier in the winter.
Cyclonepride
Thought Police
A good read on the subject is State of Fear, by Michael Crichton. It's a fictional novel, but contains footnotes of information and a nice bibliography of sources based on real world studies, which are largely ignored as science has become politicized.
