The Age Of Warming

[ericlp]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

Oh so now the government is censoring cigarette data? No, not hardly..... You can't compare GW with smoking. Almost everyone know that smoking is harmful, the problem is all the ads ... people start feeling down... or peer pressure so they go in and buy a pack thinking this might help them... Nicotine is an addictive drug that is added into to tobacco to make people smoke more just like adding caffeine to most soda's these days. People keep smoking because of the highly addictive drugs added into the product. I don't think a smoker is going to deny the health risks. Now how does that have any effect on GW? Are they adding in drugs to your bowl of cherreo's every morning telling you not to believe in it? or are they just censoring the data and telling you what they want you to hear? Sheesh...

No you are the joke here...

What you can't handle REAL science? If science is done properly, then it can be done with some sort of accuracy. If you not going to believe in the nations top science professors ... Then who are you going to believe? White house lawyers that censor science data and facts?

Face it if your arguing in this thread about global warming your are either very confused... or your taking the BS spin from our own government ... or very religious and just don't believe in science because of well, you know your unknown agendas.

Anyway, we need real science, we need real truths. We need to believe in one way or another. I happen to take the science that 60 minutes has interviewed and I believe that the planet is in trouble other wise I would not be posting this obviously.

The USA once had the best science research in the world ... Once upon a time the whole world use to look up to us as the role model. Then bush got elected and are creditability to the world is going into the crappy and has been ever since the tard has been the president. I believe that just because a handful of nut jobs don't believe in the evidence then we should still take a stand... Even tho our government is censoring what you and I hear along the way. We need to start listening to our smart people that is not going to skew the data one way or another just because the oil companies or government corruption or money bribes don't want you to know the truth.

I guess I should repeat this one more time...

The US Government is censoring the data on global warming.... DING DING DING hello? What more do I have to say before it clicks?

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Genx87
Watched a show on Dire Wolves lastnight. The suspected killer of that species is global warming and the climate change that came with it.

Oh, they died out 10,000 years ago. Damn automobiles!

that's a lie and you know it... my night elf rogue got killed by a dire wolf just last night

 

[CycloWizard]

If I went through all of my seminar notes related to this subject in the last year and posted them, would anyone even read them? I get the feeling that the conclusions have been achieved in the vacuum of any real information by most people here.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: manowar821
Who is it? Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

This is a joke, right? Why do those "The Truth" commercials make blatant exagerations and the occasional outright lie even when everyone knows how harmful cigarettes are? What does that get them?

What...? Are you honestly arguing the danger of inhaling cigarette smoke?

Wait wait, never mind that. Where do they lie to make cigarettes seem more dangerous? I've honestly never heard of this. I've heard of the lies spewed about how bad marijuana is, but not cigarettes.

Also, what does that have to do with weather models?

Fsck, my point exactly. And people wonder why I get frustrated and pissed off here. Learn to fscking read before you reply. And if you can't understand something amazingl simple like "cigarettes are dangerous, so why does a particular public relations group stretch the truth to make them sound even more dangerous than they are" when I clearly argued that IN CONTEXT, then don't reply at all, eh?

Uh..

I was teasing you, Vic...

You know, because people will say you're on the cigarette companies side if you even begin to point out lies, regardless of which side you're actually on.

I suppose I shouldn't be attempting jokes inside of heated arguments while I'm working, though. I can see now that my sarcasm wasn't lost, it was completely undetectable.

Ah gotcha. But see the idiot OP's reply to the same comment to understand how I really could believe that people here really can be that fsckin' stupid, blind, partisan, closed-minded, and conspiracy theory driven.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: ericlp
link1

Asked what that would mean for coastal areas around the world, Mayewski tells Pelley, ?If sea level were to rise like that, that would be tremendous changes. Immense migrations.?

"It would be the largest catastrophe that the modern world would have experienced," he adds.

That rise in sea level would play out over decades. Some of it may be inevitable. It turns out that many greenhouse gases last a long time in the atmosphere?there?s a lot up there already.

"If we stopped every automobile every factory, every emission of a greenhouse gas, would the world continue to warm?" Pelley asks Mayewski.

"It would certainly for a while. And I think that?s one of the important thing for people to understand," Mayewski says. "It is important that everybody really begins to make reductions in greenhouse gases all the toxic elements that go along with it in order to impact or to have a change in the future. And once we start it?s not going to be an immediate solution. We?re going to have to pay for a while for what we?ve done."

Anyone catch 60 minutes this week?

A real eye opener. From the nay sayers ... it's getting very very difficult to say no to global warming. This is something the USA is going to have to do better. As we have basically been denying the whole thing exists lately. Sad what our government knows and yet does nothing about it. Way to go!!!

Krill grow beneath the sea ice, but in the warming ocean, the sea ice is melting away.

"So the penguins have been going to sea and starving to death?" Pelley asks.

"The chicks are declining and we think they just can?t find the krill," Sue Trivelpiece says.

"When you can link a change in warming in air temperature to ice to krill to penguins and show a 50 percent reduction in the penguin population here and connect all the dots you really can?t make it any clearer than that,"

link2

..the usual pick and choose voodoo science by the misery milkers.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Because we have a very good grasp on how much we are causing Warming.

No we don't. Not at all.

Its moot because the current warming trend started during the Industrial Revolution

Too many exceptions for it to be that simply summed up.

We don't? Or you don't?

Your lack of understanding (or lack of belief) in the climatologists and their INDEPENDENT STUDIES OF OUR WEATHER does not make a good argument.

WE don't. The first path to understanding is to first achknowledge the lack of it. These independent studies are all in vast conflict. It's surprising you're not aware of that. Surely you realize how continually the climatologists' predictions and models are continually tweaked? Find me a guy or group who's made predictions over the last several years that have all been accurate and I'll bow down to this guy or group's predictive powers and give more credence to what they say. You cannot, because they are all way off the mark and "It's getting warmer" isn't very accurate; need to try a bit harder than that.

Why would anyone lie in FAVOR of the global warming theories? What does that get anyone?

Oh geeze, don't make it so easy. I sell wind generators. Want to buy one? I also sell carbon credits. How many do you need? I'm also a scientist and need a grant to study some penguins' migration in the recent decade. Mind funding my study?

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
WE don't. The first path to understanding is to first achknowledge the lack of it. These independent studies are all in vast conflict. It's surprising you're not aware of that. Surely you realize how continually the climatologists' predictions and models are continually tweaked? Find me a guy or group who's made predictions over the last several years that have all been accurate and I'll bow down to this guy or group's predictive powers and give more credence to what they say. You cannot, because they are all way off the mark and "It's getting warmer" isn't very accurate; need to try a bit harder than that.

By this reasoning, I can conclude that we don't understand how internal combustion engines work. After all, models of their function are continually improved as available computer power increases. I'll also posit that it's simply false to say that the majority of independent studies are "in vast conflict," since most of them arrive at conclusions that are qualitatively similar. Sure, the results aren't quantitatively correct, but there is no doubt about the trend at this point. Very few things in the world can be modeled with quantitative accuracy at this point due to several factors. Understanding the fundamental driving forces is not one of these factors.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: Skoorb
WE don't. The first path to understanding is to first achknowledge the lack of it. These independent studies are all in vast conflict. It's surprising you're not aware of that. Surely you realize how continually the climatologists' predictions and models are continually tweaked? Find me a guy or group who's made predictions over the last several years that have all been accurate and I'll bow down to this guy or group's predictive powers and give more credence to what they say. You cannot, because they are all way off the mark and "It's getting warmer" isn't very accurate; need to try a bit harder than that.

By this reasoning, I can conclude that we don't understand how internal combustion engines work. After all, models of their function are continually improved as available computer power increases. I'll also posit that it's simply false to say that the majority of independent studies are "in vast conflict," since most of them arrive at conclusions that are qualitatively similar. Sure, the results aren't quantitatively correct, but there is no doubt about the trend at this point. Very few things in the world can be modeled with quantitative accuracy at this point due to several factors. Understanding the fundamental driving forces is not one of these factors.

Well, you could say we don't understand internal combustion engines, but I use one to get to work and I bet it works an awful lot better than the tripe the weatherman told you this morning about what the weather will be like 10 days out Certainly you appreciate that we are more knowledgable in some areas than others. IC engines we've been successfully mastering for a long time. Weather, nope.

Qualitatively similar studies are meaningless. If I invest money into a savings account vs a lottery ticket and win I've qualitatively reached the same thing (made money). We don't understand this issue. That doesn't mean we can't try and do something to ward off a worse case, but to pretend like this is all so obvious and locked down is just plain wrong.

The trend at this point is that we're getting warmer, that's true (exceptions notwithstanding). But, we don't know how much is because of us, we don't know what the net effect (gain/loss) will be, and sadly most of all, we won't do a damn thing to stop it becaus we are too greedy and short-sighted, and that's not just because of "people like me". I merely observe humanity through history and know that it's consistently f**ks things up even when it is obvious what's going on (heck, look at a fat smoker, they do it on a personal level, even).

 

[IGBT]

NASA has now silently released corrected figures, and the changes are truly astounding. The warmest year on record is now 1934. 1998 (long trumpeted by the media as record-breaking) moves to second place. 1921 takes third. In fact, 5 of the 10 warmest years on record now all occur before World War II. Anthony Watts has put the new data in chart form, along with a more detailed summary of the events.

The effect of the correction on global temperatures is minor (some 1-2% less warming than originally thought), but the effect on the US global warming propaganda machine could be huge.

Then again? maybe not. I strongly suspect this story will receive little to no attention from the mainstream media.













Text






According to the new data published by NASA, 1998 is no longer the hottest year ever. 1934 is. Four of the top 10 years of US CONUS high temperature deviations are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900. (World rankings of temperature are calculated separately.)



Noel Sheppard wonders: ?As global warming is such a key issue being debated all around this country and on Capitol Hill, wouldn?t such a change by the agency responsible for calculating such things be important to disseminate? When this correction was made by Hansen?s team at the GISS, shouldn?t it have been reported? In fact, it is quite disgraceful that it wasn?t, as it suggests that a government agency is actually participating in a fraud against the American people by withholding information crucial to a major policy issue now facing the nation. Think this will be Newsweek?s next cover-story? No, I don?t either.?



Well, when 1934 was the hottest year on record, and NASA may know about it and doesn?t correct the data, and when a guy named James Hansen involved in all this, who is a political activist, then you have to figure there is a reason why they want 1998 continue to be reported as the warmest year on record. And voila, from a soon-to-be released Reuters story, ?A study forecasts that global warming will set in with a vengeance after 2009, with at least half of the five following years expected to be hotter than 1998, which was the warmest year on record.? So ladies and gentlemen, what do we have here? We have proof of man-made global warming. The man-made global warming is inside NASA. The man-made global warming is in the scientific community with false data. This is irresponsible. This is supposedly scientific data. It is unchallengeable. It is inarguable. And it?s bogus. I don?t know how long they?ve known it. I don?t know if they intend to correct it or not. I doubt you?ll hear anything about this, other than this program. The Drive-By Media, this is not going to interest them. ?Oh, Rush, irrelevant footnote. Everybody knows that global warm is happening out there.? All right, well, you see how this works.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

While I definitely do hate myself, that has nothing to do with this issue.

Global warming will not noticably effect me in my lifetime. It could kill everyone in the world the day after I die. I'm not debating the science, or the morality. I'm just being selfish, and I don't care what happens to the planet.

 

[Comanche]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5076322.stm

http://www.co2science.org/scri...articles/V9/N45/C2.jsp

http://www.mitosyfraudes.org/Calen7/MornerEng.html

nuph said about that!

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

While I definitely do hate myself, that has nothing to do with this issue.

Global warming will not noticably effect me in my lifetime. It could kill everyone in the world the day after I die. I'm not debating the science, or the morality. I'm just being selfish, and I don't care what happens to the planet.

..if algore and the rest of the eco-grifters get away with their emission credit scams it will greatly effect you and yours.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

I have found the cause of global warming! Looks like it is man made after all.

Edit: Apparently nobody has done a study on Ninjas yet but I'm certain you can also draw a correlation to the drop in the Ninja population as well.

 

[StageLeft]

Just saw this this morning--new millionaire's riding the wave of eco-economy How timely.

 

[imported_Shivetya]

Originally posted by: ericlp
Asked what that would mean for coastal areas around the world, Mayewski tells Pelley, ?If sea level were to rise like that, that would be tremendous changes. Immense migrations.?

"It would be the largest catastrophe that the modern world would have experienced," he adds.

I always love stupid quotes like that above.

doom and gloom... when you cannot win the war with your non-facts you resort to scaring the bejeezus out of people and villifying those who think otherwise.

 

[trenchfoot]

I think the issue is more of accusations flying from idealists who provide no solutions of their own.

i agree with you 100%. those damn idealists have no idea what they are being idealist about and what should be done about their idealisms. further, i think all idealist statements should be banned from these forums.

I had an IRL conversation not long ago with this one young idealist who summed up his position with (paraphrasing) "war, hunger, violence, crime, poverty, starvation, the environment... all of these problems could be so easily solved... " and I cut him off right there.

Really? So easily solved except for what? You think the rest of us are just evil? You think the rest of us don't care? You think we don't even want to try? You think that we haven't already been trying? Oh yeah, "that makes perfect sense." As much perfect sense as Rodney King crying "Why can't we all just get along?"

i am saving this part and passing it along to my former logic and phil. profs. to use as an essay question

Take your conspiracy theories and your utopist BS and shove it up your ass, eh?

and sending this part to my 10th grade english teacher to use as a shining example as to why it's so important to utilize proper syntax when making a point and to also strees that no matter who a person is, he/she/whatever will always have something useful to express in one way or another.....eh?

edit- removed idealist phraseology

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Kwaipie
There are those in this world that get all of their news and opinions from conservative talk show hosts. Why they choose to get their science from these radio personalities is beyond me. The VAST majority of scientific opinion (the percentage is so great that if it were the lottery, you'd play every day) indicates that this cycle of global warming is caused by man. I figure it is because the deny'ers have all of their investments in the energy sector.

The majority agreeing makes it right now?

This isnt wikipedia.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: tweaker2
*insert "its our fault" rhetoric with no evidence*

You obviously havent read the studies on global warming.

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

Moonbeam, you post someting relating to this drivel in every single damn P&N thread youre in.

Hell i remember you bringing it up in some dog thread.

 

[IGBT]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Nebor
I don't care if global warming is happening or not. It's just not a big deal to me.

This is an uncommonly honest reaction, in my opinion. I think if you will be even more honest you will find a part of you is welcoming it.

What people fail to realize is the nature of self hate. We hate ourselves and hide from that fact. That means we act out against ourselves unconsciously, since we deny this reality and are yet impelled to experience it. The result, of course, is that we are unconsciously causing our own extinction. We pollute the earth our of self hate because we know it's not nice to fool Mother nature and we want Her to punish us. All our sins are an unconscious need for self destruction. It's why the thief leaves his wallet at the crime scene.

Moonbeam, you post someting relating to this drivel in every single damn P&N thread youre in.

Hell i remember you bringing it up in some dog thread.

..it's generic liberal rehetoric that gets massaged to conform to nearly any subject matter. It's the result of BLM (battered liberal syndrome) similar to battered wife syndrome. Punctuated with bile about self hate and sooner or later spewing eco-theist dogma and rambling on about "Mother Earth" and "Her""sins?" (druidism). And the point of all this is to make you feel guilty about using energy and remind you to pay homage and money to algore and similar ilk in the emission credit racket. You'll also see similar generic liberal rehetoric in threads about education.. usually implying existing or past educational curriculum was some how rooted in bigotory..thus exposing his own infatuation with color/race/etc.

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: tweaker2
*insert "its our fault" rhetoric with no evidence*

You obviously havent read the studies on global warming.

do you mean just the ones that support your ideals or just the ones that i haven't read.....yet?

i will gladly consider perusing any study you suggest that supports your position on the matter and then discuss about it.

 

[Termagant]

We're going to have to kill the unnatural man-made moose:

http://www.spiegel.de/internat.../0,1518,501145,00.html

 

[Acanthus]

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: tweaker2
*insert "its our fault" rhetoric with no evidence*

You obviously havent read the studies on global warming.

do you mean just the ones that support your ideals or just the ones that i haven't read.....yet?

i will gladly consider perusing any study you suggest that supports your position on the matter and then discuss about it.

Read the IPCC report, not the conclusions.

No joke, even the "global warming bible" has tons of self-contradicting evidence. Multiple times throughout the study they make leaps even layman can spot without knowing the scientific method...

 

[trenchfoot]

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: tweaker2

Originally posted by: Acanthus

Originally posted by: tweaker2
*insert "its our fault" rhetoric with no evidence*

You obviously havent read the studies on global warming.

do you mean just the ones that support your ideals or just the ones that i haven't read.....yet?

i will gladly consider perusing any study you suggest that supports your position on the matter and then discuss about it.

Read the IPCC report, not the conclusions.

No joke, even the "global warming bible" has tons of self-contradicting evidence. Multiple times throughout the study they make leaps even layman can spot without knowing the scientific method...

:thumbsup:

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: Skoorb
Well, you could say we don't understand internal combustion engines, but I use one to get to work and I bet it works an awful lot better than the tripe the weatherman told you this morning about what the weather will be like 10 days out Certainly you appreciate that we are more knowledgable in some areas than others. IC engines we've been successfully mastering for a long time. Weather, nope.

Qualitatively similar studies are meaningless. If I invest money into a savings account vs a lottery ticket and win I've qualitatively reached the same thing (made money). We don't understand this issue. That doesn't mean we can't try and do something to ward off a worse case, but to pretend like this is all so obvious and locked down is just plain wrong.

I think you're missing the point. What you don't seem to realize is that, at some point along the line, ICE engines were designed using qualitative models with a side of hand-waving. Only the advent of computational flow dynamics methods have allowed quantitative modeling of engine behavior, and these were not available until very recently. Obviously we understood the basic workings of the engine, at least in a qualitative sense, based on age-old thermodynamics. However, fine-tuning to get those last bits of efficiency and power required better computational techniques and more power. Modeling the weather is no different except that the system is many times more complex because of its inherently chaotic nature, larger scale, and increased number of factors that must be considered in the model. Modeling the weather can, in principle, be achieved exactly using Navier-Stokes equations. However, solving these equations in a differential sense on a global scale is computationally infeasible to say the least, and will remain so for quite some time. In the meanwhile, qualitative modeling efforts give results that indicate possible causes for some observed trends in the data.

The trend at this point is that we're getting warmer, that's true (exceptions notwithstanding). But, we don't know how much is because of us, we don't know what the net effect (gain/loss) will be, and sadly most of all, we won't do a damn thing to stop it becaus we are too greedy and short-sighted, and that's not just because of "people like me". I merely observe humanity through history and know that it's consistently f**ks things up even when it is obvious what's going on (heck, look at a fat smoker, they do it on a personal level, even).

Actually, we do know pretty much what the human contribution is using the approach I mentioned above. Instead of trying to solve the local differential Navier-Stokes equations, they may be solved in an integral sense. In this case, the properties of the atmosphere are averaged together to give the net effect. If I solve the model with carbon dioxide levels at 100 ppm and again at 200 ppm, the results are significantly different. 100 ppm to 500 ppm gives a much larger difference. In fact, just this simple approach that most engineers (at least chemical ) learn in their first transport phenomena class can give nearly quantitative results for energy accumulation, which is amazing given the simplicity of the model. The problem is not that the individual contributions are not well understood, it's that laymen don't understand the methods used to arrive at these conclusions and so they do not make the news.