Global Warming is a hoax.

[Iacobus]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 2 2006, 02:38 PM']In 12th grade what was taught was that the amount of greenhouse gases and pollution that one volcano releases is more than we as humans can do in ten thousand years.

What I learned in 12th grade and coupled with historical temperature readings and some basic reasoning proves that global warming is not happening OR at best we do NOT have enough data to say global warming is real.
[right][snapback]873400[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

And from [url="http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_questions/grp13/question994.html"]http://volcano.und.edu/vwdocs/frequent_que...uestion994.html[/url] (I figure a kids site is best here)

[quote]Hi Ryan,

The major climatic affect that volcanoes have is due to the aerosol particles that are exploded into the troposphere by large eruptions. Even though there are many more small eruptions, unless the aerosols (and ash) makes it out of the troposphere to the stratosphere, it will be rained or snowed out in a short time.

The aerosols that do reach the stratosphere can have two affects. If they are largeer than about 2 microns, they allow incoming solar radiation to reach the Earth's surface but block outgoing heat radiation--this will contribute to global warming. On the other hand, if the aerosols are smaller than about 2 microns, they tend to block the incomming solar radiation--leading to global cooling. Pinatubo, for example, caused about a 1/2 degree C cooling of the Earth for the year or so following its big 1991 eruption.

Sincerely,

Scott Rowland [/quote]

[PadreSantiago]

hahah yeah what do those silly scientists know? It's not like they went to college or anything. I think a random person on the internet has more knowledge about global warming than average joe scientist.

[ironmonk]

The scientists are still debating.

The earth is thousands if not billions of years old.

The earths temps have always fluctuated.

We cannot cause a major change in the earths temp.

IF we could cause it, all it would do is warm a little faster, and then cool again.

There have always been these gas emissions from volcanoes. Some volcanic eruptions thousands of years ago caused major climent change. What happened? The earth adjusted and went back to a equilibrium.

Of course I do not expect someone with an English major to understand this completely, so maybe you just think differently.

hmmmm what do some other scientists say?

[url="http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm"]http://www.john-daly.com/solar/solar.htm[/url]

[quote]http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-review/opinion/columnists/steigerwald/s_329415.html

Global warming is, shall we say, a hot topic in liberal media circles.
The New Yorker is running a series on how the Arctic's sea ice, permafrost and glaciers all are melting because of man-caused global warming. Mother Jones has a cover story essentially saying that ExxonMobil has bought and paid for virtually every scientist who's skeptical of global warming. Even The Weather Channel is doing weather-docs on Arctic thawing.

For a little balance, we called up Fred Singer, an expert on global climate change and a pioneer in the development of rocket and satellite technology. He holds a Ph.D. in physics from Princeton and happens to be the guy who devised the basic instrument for measuring stratospheric ozone. Now president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project research group (sepp.org), his dozen books include "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate." I talked to him by telephone from his offices in Arlington, Va.:

Q: Here's a line from the Mother Jones article: "There is overwhelming scientific consensus that greenhouse gases emitted by human activity are causing global average temperatures to rise." Is that true?

A: It's completely unsupported by any observation, but it's supported by (computer) climate models. In other words, the models would indicate this. The observations do not.

Q: What's the best argument or proof that global warming is not happening?

A: The best proof are data taken of atmospheric temperature by two completely different methods. One is from instruments carried in satellites that look down on the atmosphere. The other is from instruments carried in balloons that ascend through the atmosphere and take readings as they go up. These measurements show that the atmospheric warming, such as it is, is extremely slight -- a great deal less than any of the models predicts, and in conflict also with observations of the surface.

Q: What is the most dangerous untrue "fact" about global warming?

A: The rise in sea level. Again, the observations show that sea level has risen in the last 18,000 years by about 400 feet and is continuing to rise at a uniform rate, and is not accelerating, irrespective of warming or cooling. In fact, sea level will continue to rise at a slow rate of 8 inches per century, as it has been for the last few thousand years.

[u][b]Q: If you had a 12-year-old grandkid who was worried about global warming, what would you tell him?

A: I would tell them that there are many more important problems in the world to worry about, such as diseases, pandemics, nuclear war and terrorism. The least important of these is global warming produced by humans, because it will be insignificant compared to natural fluctuations of climate. [/b][/u]

Q: How did you become what Mother Jones says you are -- "the godfather of global warming denial"?

A: That's easy. Age. I organized my first conference on global warming in 1968. At that time I had no position. It was a conference called "The global effects of environmental pollution." At that time I remember some of the experts we had speaking thought the climate was going to warm and some thought it was going to cool. That was the situation.

Q: Climate is extremely complicated -- is that a true statement?

A: Immensely complicated. Which is a reason why the models will never be able to adequately simulate the atmosphere. It's just too complicated.

Q: Give me a sample of how complicated just one little thing can be.

A: The most complicated thing about the atmosphere that the models cannot capture is clouds. First of all, clouds are small. The resolution of the models is about 200 miles; clouds are much smaller than that. Secondly, they don't know when clouds form. They have to guess what humidity is necessary for a cloud to form. And of course, humidity is not the only factor. You have to have nuclei -- little particles -- on which the water vapor can condense to form droplets. They don't know that either. And they don't know at what point the cloud begins to rain out. And they don't know at what point -- it goes on like this.

[b]Q: Is this debate a scientific fight or a political fight?

A: Both. I much support a scientific fight, because I'm pretty sure we'll win that -- because the data support us; they don't support the climate models. Basically it's a fight of people who believe in data, or who believe in the atmosphere, versus people who believe in models. [/b]

Q: Is it not true that CO2 levels have gone up by about a third in the last 100 years?

A: A little more than a third, yes. I accept that.

Q: Do you say that's irrelevant?

A: It's relevant, but the effects cannot be clearly seen. The models predict huge effects from this, but we don't see them.

Q: Why is it important that global warming be studied in a balanced, scientific, depoliticized way?

A: It's a scientific problem. The climate is something we live with, and we need to know what effect human activities are having on climate. I don't deny that there's some effect of human activities on climate. We need to learn how important they are. [/quote]



Global Warming & Hurricanes
[url="http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4418"]http://capmag.com/article.asp?ID=4418[/url]


Climatologists bet $10,000 on cooler world
[url="http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1552092,00.html"]http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,...1552092,00.html[/url]

Holes in the Greenhouse Effect?
[url="http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html"]http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html[/url]




Hmmmm... global warming is based on computer models that can't predict accurate weather more than a few days in advance? Hmmmmm... yet the farmers almanac is uncanny at getting it right... hmmmmmm.... How does the farmers almanac know? OH, they've been studying the history of the climent change and noticed a simple pattern that is older than most people live.

hmmmm... hmmmm....

The only reason why the news is all over this is because fear sells and it's opposite what Bush believes. See, we conservatives base our views on what is right and facts... unlike liberals basing their stance on the opposite of whatever we choose.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic shirts that are Right, not wrong.

[ironmonk]

Game Over

You Win!! You have learned the truth. :

Now you don't have to worry about the chicken little cries of the media...






:applause:

Now we can

[dairygirl4u2c]

It's odd how monk likes to equate his rightness with things with truth in the same way he does with the CC, as if he's that stuck to his position.

i agree with him. i wasn't sure before the last posts, but tended toward his position. now i'm for it all the way. but to say someone doesn't know logic or the english language because they didn't necessarily buy into his uncited statements is...


monk could have at least waited until after citing and someone digressing still to insult. but in typical monk fashion, he makes broad, convtroversial (which implies complicated) statements without citing sources, then argues a little, then insults the person and finally cities his source so as to show that he was always right.

for me to explain how this is lousy needn't be done by those who know better...
*insert another ironmonkish insult*

Edited February 3, 2006 by dairygirl4u2c

[ironmonk]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' date='Feb 2 2006, 10:27 PM']It's odd how monk likes to equate his rightness with things with truth in the same way he does with the CC, as if he's that stuck to his position.

i agree with him. i wasn't sure before the last posts, but tended toward his position. now i'm for it all the way. but to say someone doesn't know logic or the english language because they didn't necessarily buy into his uncited statements is...
*insert an ironmonkish insult*
[right][snapback]873885[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]


I edited, it was harsh. I shouldn't have retaliated.


God Bless,
ironmonk

[dairygirl4u2c]

Well, I do notice that heart in the title of your post that I thougt was an insult. I apologize.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 2 2006, 10:33 PM']I edited, it was harsh. I shouldn't have retaliated.
God Bless,
ironmonk
[right][snapback]873892[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]

[morostheos]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Feb 2 2006, 10:13 PM']The scientists are still debating.

The earth is thousands if not billions of years old.

The earths temps have always fluctuated.[/quote]
We agree thus far.

[quote]We cannot cause a major change in the earths temp.[/quote]
This is completely unsubstantiated and generally worthless political drivel.

[quote]IF we could cause it, all it would do is warm a little faster, and then cool again.

There have always been these gas emissions from volcanoes. Some volcanic eruptions thousands of years ago caused major climent change. What happened? The earth adjusted and went back to a equilibrium.[/quote]

Yes, I agree with this. Of course, you may not be aware of the time scale on which something like this would happen. For such equilibrium to occur, I would say it would take a minimum of hundreds or thousands of years. It assumes the source of excess emissions has been significantly reduced/ceased completely as well. I can think of two ways that could happen: (1) We eventually curtail our emissions of greenhouse gases; or (2) We become extinct. The earth didn't adjust and return to equilibrium until after the major volcano had ceased erupting.

[quote]hmmmm what do some other scientists say?[/quote]
I'm glad you were able to find a scientist that agrees with you (somewhat).

[quote]Hmmmm... global warming is based on computer models that can't predict accurate weather more than a few days in advance? Hmmmmm... yet the farmers almanac is uncanny at getting it right... hmmmmmm.... How does the farmers almanac know? OH, they've been studying the history of the climent change and noticed a simple pattern that is older than most people live.

hmmmm... hmmmm....

The only reason why the news is all over this is because fear sells and it's opposite what Bush believes. See, we conservatives base our views on what is right and facts... unlike liberals basing their stance on the opposite of whatever we choose.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <- Catholic shirts that are Right, not wrong.
[right][snapback]873868[/snapback][/right]
[/quote]
I'm also glad that you enjoy patronizing scientists.

No one says that computer models are 100% accurate. Small changes in a computer model's input can create large changes in output. The nice thing about models is that you can change your inputs easily and see what comes out. It helps to understand the mechanics of something too complex for us to ever fully understand.

Because you can change the inputs, there are a variety of models that have been created for global climate change predictions. There are conservative and extreme models, some which assume conditions will remain exactly as they are currently and some which assume conditions will continue to worsen.

[Iacobus]

Ironmonk, how much do you know about calculus? This will work as a nice lesson if you know something about it and if you don't, well then time to learn.

Calculus allows for the calculation of area under a curve in a XY plane in a simple method. Picture (or draw) a function, now, to find the area under it think about putting rectangles in the area until you fill the area completely. Now, you have some major over hang so decrease the size of the rectangles. Smaller. Smaller again. Smaller. You are decreasing the width of the rectangles so that it is appoarching zero. In fact, it behaves like zero, the "ghost of a departed entity." In short, to find the area under a curve you add a whole series of zeros together and get a non-zero result.

Another example is the formula Pe^(rt). A small amount of P can have a major impact over a proper amount of time or rate of compounding. For example, 1,800 dollars (it could also be adjusted to do half lifes) is what my dad paid to go to school when he was in college. We can run a calculation on that and we get

1,800*e^(.05*(2005-(1945+18+4)))=12,000

That is basic inflation (a rate of 5%, to account for stag inflation, etc) over the interval of time between when my dad graduated and I started college. It increased by a factor of 6.7 over those years. Five precent is a small small amount, but when it is compounded it grows rapidly.

Small changes, small outputs, can cause major changes. Twenty or less grams in a four liter beaker can cause a change on the order of 5 K, we put out at least (data for EPA) 13 000 000 000 metric tons per year. That is a density of .00000013 g per liter per year. Hmmm, that means, assuming no CO2 is in the atomosphere now, and given the 50 year halflife of CO2, we would have a density of .0000065 g per liter. Assuming a contant rate of production. Want to hedge your bets.

And a thing I noticed, some people on this board cite pages in this debate, I have cited the EPA and the American Chemical Society. Others are citing websites that end with *.com, They can't find a *.edu or a real society that supports there claims. Intresting.

[jezic]

it is interesting how this has resorted to documentation. We do this a lot.

about the people who were talking about 1 freak month or even a year, the thing is that this year was warmer than last year which was exceptionally warm as well. That was warmer than the year before.

Global warming is occurring, the question is more the source and is it natural or artificial.

Since we have been recording things the process seems to be speeding up.

The thing is that if we reduce emissions it will help the environment period. It might not dent this whole trend of increasing temps a who lot, but it might do something as well.

THere is no harm in letting congress think that our emissions warm up the world. If they act to fix it, then we can be happy that we got cleaner skies.

Maybe one of the reasons that we think this way is because man likes to be in control. We like to be able to fix problems. If we are causing it, we can fix it. That might be the best way of describing this whole thing. If we are not the cause, then there is no way for us to fix it. I think that idea wouldn't fly with many people today. They don't like to know that some thigns are out of their hands.

[cmotherofpirl]

Conflicting Claims on Global Warming and Why It's All Moot
By Robert Roy Britt
LiveScience Managing Editor
posted: 01 February 2006
08:43 am ET



"Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995."
—Statement issued Monday by NOAA

A widely reported study last week said 2005 was the warmest on record. But headlines failed to note that the results were not concrete and a new study out this week challenges the findings.

Whatever the outcome, scientists say it is all moot: Last year was surprisingly warm and the record will fall soon enough.

The latest result came Monday from the National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), which is part of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). These are the folks that run the National Weather Service. Their study concludes that the global temperature in 2005 can't be statistically distinguished from the record set in 1998.

Last year was a warm year at Earth's surface, especially considering the lack of a heat-producing El Nino, but for now experts do not agree whether it was a record.

Mixed results

Last week, The Associated Press and others reported that a NASA scientist said 2005 was the warmest year on record, nosing out 1998.

Lost in many of the headlines, however, was this quote from the report's lead researcher, James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies: "We couldn't say with 100 percent certainty that it's the warmest year, but I'm reasonably confident that it was."

Hansen looked at different data in different ways compared to the NOAA team. The NASA study considered in particular data from the Arctic, which is warming faster than the rest of the planet. And for the latter part of 2005 both reports relied on preliminary data, so the analyses could change.

In an email interview yesterday, Hansen reiterated his caveat.

"I believe that 2005 is the warmest year, because the main source of difference is the Arctic, and I believe it is likely that our estimate there is in the right ballpark even though it is based on some extrapolations," Hansen said. "However, I admit that it could be wrong, in which case 2005 might be slightly cooler than 1998."

Other caveats

In both studies, there are margins of error. Much of the analysis involves satellite data that covers just the past three decades or so. Complicating matters, ground-based temperature-monitoring stations are sparse or nonexistent in many parts of the world, particularly in the Arctic. And a key to the results are satellite data that note sea surface temperatures since 1982. Prior years are gauged by less-precise data from ship logs.

Finally, reliable records for most ground locations go back only about a century, so setting records may not be as surprising as if they broke marks that had been around longer.

So while all leading experts agree the planet has warmed about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century (and NOAA says the rate has tripled since 1976) ranking the warmest years is a huge statistical challenge.

In fact the NOAA analysis yielded two results: One data set, in use since the late 1990s, found that 2005 was slightly cooler than 1998, with 2005 being 1.04 degrees Fahrenheit above the 1880-2004 average, while 1998 was 1.12 degrees above that norm.

The other NOAA data set and analysis technique (which will become the primary method used henceforth) puts 2005 slightly warmer than 1998. It has 2005 at 1.12 degrees above the norm and 1998 at 1.06 degrees above the norm. But the report states that "uncertainties associated with the various factors and methodologies used in data set development make 2005 statistically indistinguishable from 1998."

A third study

Still another study, led by John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, paints a different picture.

Christy said in early January that 2005 tied with 2002 for second place.

But Christy looked at entirely different data, and the results are not conflicting, he said. Christy examined the entire "bulk" troposphere, from the surface up to about 35,000 feet. In that measurement of the atmosphere, 2005 "clearly was not the warmest," he said in a telephone interview yesterday.

Christy said his approach, which relies on observations from satellites and balloons, is more systematic and global than the estimates provided in the surface-temperature studies. On the other hand, it does not incorporate data more than a few decades back in time.

Interestingly, the troposphere as a whole tends to lag behind rising surface temperatures, Christy said. So measurements over the next few months could show an increase in the troposphere.

The bottom line

Regardless where 2005 ends up, this statement from NOAA puts things in perspective: "Nine of the 10 warmest years on record have occurred since 1995."

And beyond the temperature data, there is plenty of stark evidence for significant warming at the surface. Ground in the Northern Hemisphere that's been frozen since the last Ice Age is melting and collapsing. Animals are changing migration and mating habits. And glaciers are melting and shrinking at alarming rates.

Meanwhile, climatologists are impressed with nature's showing in 2005, because by conventional thinking it should not have been first or second on the all-time list. That's because 1998, the previous hottest year, saw temperatures boosted by a strong El Nino, which was not in place during 2005.

"The bottom line: 2005 was very warm," said Richard Heim, who worked on the NOAA report.

"2005 was not an El Nino year, yet we were toying with tying the 1998 El Nino year," Heim said. "If we had had an El Nino, how warm would it have been?"

NASA's Hansen is already looking ahead to years that he and most other experts expect to be warmer.

"We may get a more definitive assessment from additional data, but it also may be that we will never know for sure," he said. "However, it doesn't matter much. I am confident that we will exceed both of these years within the next few years."

[aalpha1989]

Has anyone read State of Fear by Michael Crichton?

[ironmonk]

[quote]This is completely unsubstantiated and generally worthless political drivel. [/quote]
no it's not. it has nothing to do with politics and it's not unsubstantiated.


[quote]I'm also glad that you enjoy patronizing scientists. [/quote]

I do not respect the opinions of "scientists" who are not science minded... these in particular ignore the blatent facts of historical temperature changes.


Worst case scenario is that IF we were hurring the warming we will just get to the cooling phase sooner.


Everything pushed by the left is tainted. I have yet to see something pushed by the left that does not have a spin or some obvious ulterior motive.

There are tell tale traits that people do that show their character...
people that want to kill babies do not want to give money to the poor for sake of the poor and to end poverty.

People that kill babies don't care about the earth for the sake of the earth.

People that kill babies because they can because of privacy are selfish people.

The ends do not justify the means.

I take everything from the wrong side with a grain of salt, I think maybe "this time" they have a point, I listen to them, and I do my own research... then I base my opinion on the research that I have found. I try to research the sources of the research that I find. It is foolish to accept the opinion of a group that time and time again show a serious use of unsound logic, misconstrued information, and upside down priorities. Therefore I believe it is foolish to listen to anything from the wrong side (aka left/liberal). Mainstream journalism is not about facts anymore, it's about ratings. Fear sells... hate sells. Combine the two and you'll manipulate the ignorant like Hilter did... and that is what the mainstream media and democrat senators do.

God Bless,
ironmonk
[url="http://www.CatholicSwag.com"]http://www.CatholicSwag.com[/url] <-- Shirts that are free from leftist tainting

[Winchester]

a pole shift would smell of elderberries. my understanding is it would knock out all DC devices.

Guns would still work. That would probably mean a republican run nation since the democrat party has forsaken the traditional left wing policy of violence for whining and movie making by vaguely Ewok shaped prevaricators.