# Global Warming and Katrina...



## Makalakumu (Sep 6, 2005)

I found this by RFK jr.  It is very interesting...




> 08.29.2005
> 
> *For They That Sow the Wind Shall Reap the Whirlwind (153 comments ) *
> 
> ...


 



What do you think?


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 6, 2005)

RFK Jr. has made some statements about Mr. Barbour that went too far. But his point must be considered. Governor Barbour has played a strong part in Grover Norquist's conservative agenda of "drowning government in a bathtub". Although, he seems to be first in line to take a federal handout after this disaster (so much for Conservative States Rights arguments, eh?).

Another reference to look at is this odd little book from the early 90's; something called 'Earth in the Balance: Ecology and the Human Spirit' by some obscure Senator from Tennessee. Seems this author kinda forsaw that the surface of the oceans warming up might present a problem for those low-lying coastal cities, like New Orleans. 

One last thought ... directed at that last paragraph. Although abortion is a legal procedure in the United States, it is difficult to come by in Louisiana. I heard there were only 10 clinics that would undertake this medical procedure in the entire state. Well, it seems some Christ-ian groups are not hesitating to point out that 5 of those 10 clinics are/were in New Orleans. Geez ... maybe Pastor Robertson was right after all, eh? ----- Nah! ---- he's just an *******!


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 6, 2005)

To be totally honest, I think global warming is a bunch of crock. No offense to anyone who believes it, but I believe there is a lot of bad science behind it that has not been openly confronted by the media.
I've still yet to find someone who can explain to me the actual scientific reasoning behind Kyoto, especially the infamous "hockey-stick graph" quoted so much. You know, the one where temperature is more or less "low" with no variation higher than half a degree Centigrade and then all of a sudden it shoots up so much higher very rapidly in current years.

Even though temperatures are warmer than in the 1970s (the cool temperature at that time was cited as evidence that mankind was doing something bad to the environment), they are _cooler_ than they were in 1930s. You won't see that in the oft-quoted hockey-stick graph.

The hockey-stick graph and supporters of human-induced global warming theories make no mention whatsoever of the two largest temperature fluctuations of the past millenium (correlated with numerous GLOBAL proxies, not just local, isolated ones). Those are the Medieval Warm Period between 700 and 1300 and the "Little Ice Age" from around 1560 - 1830. What industrial output were we doing back then to make the temperature so many degrees warmer than it is today?

Nor can they explain how tree-ring proxy data (shown to be not a very reliable temperature proxy...taken only during the growing season and only during the daytime let alone a host of other factors) of a study (Mann's hockey-stick graph) specifically of North America somehow is now interpreted as indicating global temperature.
Nor do they explain how the large margins of error present in the original Mann graph never appear anywhere else.

Or the fact that the United States has had some of the cleanest air in the past few years, with 2004 being a record low for ozone pollution. That's using both the old and the new ways of calculation, by the way.

There are so many inconsistencies, it is simply tiring to list them all.


Oh, and another thing...
*The fact that we have modern technology to minimize death in these instances desensitizes us to how destructive hurricanes and natural disasters like them have always been and still are.* We forget that in poorer countries like Bangladesh, floods and hurricanes kill literally hundreds of thousands of people in some cases. The mild ones kill "only" tens of thousands initially, not including all the deaths from starvation and displacement. But our comfortable lifestyles, our clean water and warm showers...they all make us forget how powerful nature by itself really is. Nature doesn't need humankind to "go mad" as the poster on the forum wrote...it is often crazy enough by itself. Life is resilient on Earth and Nature can be very good...but Nature is also very destructive. At least 5 major cataclysmic extinctions have occurred on this planet...in the most drastic, 95 percent of all species on Earth were destroyed.

But thanks to technology and progress, we forget these things. We see these disasters (don't get me wrong, they truly are tragedies) and wonder how they could happen. In arrogance, many people point to humanity as the cause, forgetting these things have always happened. Fortunately, thanks to technology and progress we can mitigate the damage and make it easier to cope. If only we could somehow mitigate ridiculous claims coming from environmentalists so eager to claim any disaster as the fault of industry and progress.


Edit: As far as those claiming Katrina was sent down by God to punish a place that allowed abortion clinics, those people are just morons.


----------



## arnisador (Sep 6, 2005)

I just finished watching "The Day After Tomorrow" which would convince anyone that global warming is a crock.

It's all cyclic. We know that!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 6, 2005)

I watched two shows the other day on Discovery about Katrina and Hurricanes. One mentioned as if it was fact that it is global warming that caused Katrina. (* This being the news approach *) The other (* scientific approach *) made a comment about the Gulf of Mexico being a degree or two higher than normal, and than tracked it back to when it was a degree higher back in the 70's and late 50's & 60's. The relationship is that when the water gets warmer, then there are more and stronger hurricanes. 

Another aspect reported was that there is a cycle for Hurricanes, that has us right now coming out of the low end to a higher end, much closer to about 1500 years ago.


----------



## deadhand31 (Sep 6, 2005)

Where to begin here, hooboy. 

     First off, the Kyoto Protocol. What exactly did it do? Basically, those industrialized countries who would have signed on with it would have had to cut C02 emmisions considerably. It did not, however, touch developing countries like China, who are belching out CO2 at a higher rate than we are. 

     Second, the kyoto protocol was a step taken out of order. The first thing that it should have done is research. Does CO2 cause global warming? Good question. If you take a look at CO2 levels, they have been on a constant rise in this country for about 100 years, mostly due to land use. However, in a 30 year period from about 1940 to 1970, there was a time when national temperatures went down while CO2 levels went up. If CO2 causes warmer temperatures, why did temperatures go down in that 30 year period? 

     Third, hurricanes. Is it true that this country has never seen a devestating hurricane, ever?? No, it's not true. In 1900, there was a freak hurricane in Galveston, TX, that killed 6000 people. It has been often referred to as "The 1900 Storm". CO2 levels were lower then, so why was there such a horrible hurricane? Could it be that these things happen?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

50 million years ago, in the Eocene, the average global temperature was 26 degrees C! The world was covered with a blanket of rainforest and even the poles were green. The oceans were high and epicratonic seas swept over the continental shelves and reached far into the interior. 

Then, something changed. The oceans currents began to slow and stop and ice began to form at the poles for the first time in hundreds of millions of years. In matter of a million years, the global temperature fell 15 degrees and 30% of animal species on earth went extinct. 

Think about this. 15 degree temperature change over a million years...and we get a mass extinction. What happens if we change the temperature 5 degrees in a hundred? That is exactly what many of the models predict. Life depends on a stable environment in order to prosper. Human, in order to support our current population, NEED a stable climate. We are changing the climate and we can measure the changes and even though we can't figure out how these changes might affect us yet, the climate is still changing. 

I liken this process to the famous flowerpot islands around many south pacific islands. These islands are made of limestone and coral and there is an algea that feeds on the CaCO^3 in the rock. Feeding on the algea are small mollusks called Chitons. These creatures have iron teeth that they use to scrape the algea away. Unfortuneately, it also scrapes a little bit of the rock away, too. Over the years this has led to a mushroom shaped island with the stems getting smaller and smaller every year. 

If the chitons were capable of thought, they might look at the way they were living and ask the question, if we keep scraping the rock away on the stem of these islands, the whole thing is going to come crashing down to kill us all. But they are not, and they continue to scrape and the island falls on the entire community. Do you see my point? 

Extinction is in our future whether we like it or not. It may be tomorrow, or it may be a million years from now. The forces of nature could extinct us easily and there would be nothing we could do about it. Just as quickly though, we could extinct ourselves with vast amounts of thermonuclear weaponry. Much more insideous, though, is this "chewing up the island" process. It does not happen quickly, so it doesn't send us into a panic that would unite people against it. Yet, the changes are going to lead to a different global climate in a short time. 

Global warming has the potential to affect our lives and our children's lives negatively. Something needs to be done about it. We can sit there and stare at the island above us and hope that it doesn't fall, meanwhile ignoring the fact that the small things we all do will tip it over, as long as we want. Or at least, until it falls. Then what? Extinction? Maybe, maybe not. Yet, the concept alone is unthinkable. It is different then death because at least something of us would pass on. The immortality of our genetic lines end. It's too much to risk just to drive an SUV.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

If you look at this site http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e.pdf 

This graph clearly shows an increase in CO^2 levels since 1958. The short up and down movements on the graph show a phenomenon known in the northern hemisphere known as winter. People are burning fuel to keep warm. Individually, if you look at the spikes, they rise a little higher each year. This reflects the fact that our population has been rising since 1958. From this information, you can clearly see that carbon dioxide increases are directly related to the activities of humans. 

Carbon Dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. Its molecular properties clearly show its ability to absorb and emit photons in the IR spectrum. From this information and from information taken at other observatories worldwide it is clearly a safe assumption that global warming is occurring.

And then if you Look at this site and view all of the observation station's data

http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm 

It clearly shows that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and this correlates to graphs showing an increase in temperature. If you look at the Ice Core graphs, you will see that natural CO^2 fluctuations are much more gradual. It takes thousands of years to accomplish what humans have accomplished in 50 years. 

Our current global warming trends cannot be totally attributed to natural causes. The data shows that WE are at least part of this phenomenon.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA206.html
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=473


> When taking a peek at the more distant past, Richard Alley from Penn State University discovered through ice-core measurements that global temperatures and precipitation in the last few thousand years have been as steady as any time during the last 100 millennia. He also found that large swings in temperature (15 degrees Fahrenheit) and wet weather occurred on a regular basis prior to the recent quieter time. Perhaps more interesting is that these swings, which happened long before humans had a chance to influence the environment, typically occurred within a 10-year period, indicating that drastic climate change can occur through natural means, and quickly.
> 
> This evidence raises an interesting and provocative idea. Perhaps wilder weather is actually more typical than benign weather.
> 
> Whether humans are contributing to climate change or not, maybe the pendulum is beginning to swing back - toward the wild side.


http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm


> Why are temperatures rising? The first chart nearby shows temperatures during the past 250 years, relative to the mean temperature for 1951-70. The same chart shows the length of the solar magnetic cycle during the same period. Close correlation between these two parameters--the shorter the solar cycle (and hence the more active the sun), the higher the temperature--demonstrates, as do other studies, that the gradual warming since the Little Ice Age and the large fluctuations during that warming have been caused by changes in solar activity.
> 
> The highest temperatures during this period occurred in about 1940. During the past 20 years, atmospheric temperatures have actually tended to go down, as shown in the second chart, based on very reliable satellite data, which have been confirmed by measurements from weather balloons.
> 
> ...


http://www.cato.org/dailys/6-30-97.html
http://scs.student.virginia.edu/~liberty/articles/GlobWarm.html
http://www.cato.org/dailys/07-08-99.html


> Without sulfate aerosols, computer models indicate our hemisphere should have already warmed about 2.3 degrees Celsius as a result of the greenhouse effect. The observed warming this century is a scant 0.65 degrees. If the sulfate hypothesis fails, the argument devolves into what the "skeptics" have said for decades: the earth simply isn't going to warm all that much.
> 
> Having held a doctorate in climatology for two decades, I feel confident in saying that every one of my colleagues who has expressed an opinion to me dislikes Wigley, mainly because he seems arrogantly dismissive of some facts when they get in the way of his theories. He actively discourages the airing of points of view that conflict with his.
> 
> In October 1994, at a global warming meeting called by Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), Wigley was confronted with the reality that satellites had found no warming. He merely waved his hands and said, "Oh come now, that's just the satellite data." Oh come now, Tom, it's just the only global measure of temperature that exists!


http://www.detnews.com/EDITPAGE/0001/16/1edit/1edit.htm


> Thus it is far from clear that the much ballyhooed greenhouse effect is the cause of the observed warming. Surface warming, the study notes, is not necessarily representative of how the atmosphere is responding to long-term, human-induced changes. One of the studys authors, John R. Christy, an atmospheric scientist at the University of Alabama, goes even further and explicitly notes that using the observed warming to predict future climate trends remains fraught with peril.


What is it with school teachers and environmental "nuts"? My sisters a HS science teacher and she's was indoctrinated with this **** in college too.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/reg15n2g.html
> http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA206.html
> http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=473
> http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm
> ...


Quite a few of your sources are organizations that directly contribute to "the sagebrush revolution" an anti-environmental movement dedicated to turning back the progress that President Richard Nixon (of all people) made.  

Drill cores show that in the past when CO^2 was added to the atmosphere, temperatures rose considerably.  The data shows that we are adding CO^2 with our activities.  The evidence also shows that the temerature is rising.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html



> The strongest hurricanes in the present climate may be upstaged by even more intense hurricanes over the next century as the earth's climate is warmed by increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. Although we cannot say at present whether more or fewer hurricane will occur in the future with global warming, the hurricanes that do occur near the end of the 21st century are expected to be stronger and have significantly more intense rainfall than under present day climate conditions. This expectation (Figure 1) is based on an anticipated enhancement of energy available to the storms due to higher tropical sea surface temperatures.


I suggest looking at Figure 1 listed above.  The graph is very informative.

I would not want to live near the gulf or in Florida with these kind of predictions.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 7, 2005)

Everyone scoffs if anyone considered remotely conservative brings up scientific arguments.  Meanwhile, you get ultra-liberal hardcore environmentalists with an obvious agenda and people take their unfounded claims seriously.  Funny world we live in.


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 7, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> Everyone scoffs if anyone considered remotely conservative brings up scientific arguments. Meanwhile, you get *ultra-liberal* *hardcore environmentalists* with an *obvious agenda* and people take their *unfounded claims* seriously. Funny world we live in.


That could be because many (not all) conservatives seem to be of the church-goin' type. And you see, church and science, well, they don't go together. They have different methods of serving different purposes. Ain't no harm in that.

I certainly am 'ultra-liberal', but that is an awful broad brush to paint some of our colleagues on this board. 

I don't know that I am a 'hardcore environmentalist' ... sure I want trout swimming in the rivers, and deer walking through the woods. ... If that qualifies as a 'hardcore environmentalist', I guess I am.

Now, 'obvious agenda' .... don't know what that may be ... except, to perhaps leave the planet at least as nice as how I found it; to conserve natural resources.

As for 'unfounded claims', why don't you, please, debunk them as opposed to throwing defamatory adjectives around. 

Explain to me how, carbon di-oxide does not trap solar energy within the atmosphere.
Explain, how combustion of fossil fuels, (coal, oil, natural gas) does not add to the amount of carbon di-oxide in the atmosphere.
Show me where the ravaging of the rain forests (where plants, through photosynthesis convert carbon di-oxide back into oxygen) has not reduced the planents ability to heal itself. (I once had a guitar made out of Honduras Mahogany ... nice instrument ... prolly bad politics).
Demonstrate how the plant life in the oceans (another great source of absorbing carbon di-oxide) dying off from pollution does affect the planets ability to absorb all those carbons.
Ah, never mind ... it's all just cyclical anyhow.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

:bs: 

Katrina and Disgusting Exploitation 



> Tragedies happen, and my daughter and her family are happy just to be alive. Their losses and those of hundreds of thousands of other innocents deserve mourning, prayer and respect.
> 
> That is why the response of environmental extremists fills me with what only can be called disgust. They have decided to exploit the death and devastation to win support for the failed Kyoto Protocol, which requires massive cutbacks in energy use to reduce, by a few tenths of a degree, surface warming projected 100 years from now.





> Giant hurricanes are rare, but they are not new. And they are not increasing. To the contrary. Just go to the website of the National Hurricane Center and check out a table that lists hurricanes by category and decade. The peak for major hurricanes (categories 3,4,5) came in the decades of the 1930s, 1940s and 1950s, when such storms averaged 9 per decade. In the 1960s, there were 6 such storms; in the 1970s, 4; in the 1980s, 5; in the 1990s, 5; and for 2001-04, there were 3. Category 4 and 5 storms were also more prevalent in the past than they are now. As for Category 5 storms, there have been only three since the 1850s: in the decades of the 1930s, 1960s and 1990s.





> But that doesn't stop an enviro-predator like Robert F. Kennedy Jr. from writing on the Huffingtonpost website: "Now we are all learning what it's like to reap the whirlwind of fossil fuel dependence which Barbour and his cronies have encouraged. Our destructive addiction has given us a catastrophic war in the Middle East and - now -- Katrina is giving our nation a glimpse of the climate chaos we are bequeathing our children."





> The Kyoto advocates point to warmer ocean temperatures, but they ought to read their own favorite newspaper, The New York Times, which reported yesterday:
> 
> 
> 
> "Because hurricanes form over warm ocean water, it is easy to assume that the recent rise in their number and ferocity is because of global warming. But that is not the case, scientists say. Instead, the severity of hurricane seasons changes with cycles of temperatures of several decades in the Atlantic Ocean. The recent onslaught 'is very much natural,' said William M. Gray, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University who issues forecasts for the hurricane season.'"





> Indeed, there is no evidence that hurricanes are intensifying anyway. For the North Atlantic as a whole, according to the United Nations Environment Programme of the World Meteorological Organization: "Reliable datasince the 1940s indicate that the peak strength of the strongest hurricanes has not changed, and the mean maximum intensity of all hurricanes has *decreased*."





> *But environmental extremists do not want to be bothered with the facts. Nor do they wish to mourn the destruction and death wreaked on a glorious city. To their everlasting shame, they would rather distort and exploit*.



so what do i think?  it's all BS.  Kyoto would have never prevented this.  if you believe otherwise, you're a dumbass.  politicizing a natural and devastating disaster lies in the mind of very sick people.

Educate Yourselves... or continue to read biased political web-blogs to gain an understanding of how "things" in the envionment work.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/pointlss.htm


> Although all of the greenhouse computer models predict that the greatest warming will occur in the Arctic region of the Northern Hemisphere, temperature records indicate that the Arctic has actually cooled by 0.88 C over the past fifty years.
> 
> 
> Corrective environmental policies would have a minuscule impact on the climate. According to its own projections, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Changes own plan would spare the earth only a few hundredths of a degree of warming by middle of the next century.


http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend


> According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point - around 1880 - was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 - before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.
> 
> According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. 'As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age,' remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.


http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA177.html


> Forget what you've read in the press or heard on television: There is no scientific consensus on global warming.


http://www.rppi.org/globalwarmingmyth.shtml


> But could it be that arguing about current global warming theories is actually distracting our attention and billions of dollars of research funds from other pressing environmental issues such as ozone depletion, over-fishing or the demise of the rain forest? Energy companiesand all good global citizenswould like to be able to make environmental spending and strategy decisions that will have the most impact. Right now, not everyone's agreed on where that will be.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

what's this i see?  scientists raising the BS flag as well....?  say it ain't so.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Most of these weather geeks claim BS too...
http://www.easternuswx.com/bb/lofiversion/index.php/t35847.html


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

*How Global Warming Research is Creating a Climate of Fear*




> *Science losing objectivity*
> 
> This self-censorship in the minds of scientists ultimately leads to a sort of deafness toward new, surprising insights that compete with or even contradict the conventional explanatory models. Science is deteriorating into a repair shop for conventional, politically opportune scientific claims. Not only does science become impotent; it also loses its ability to objectively inform the public.
> 
> ...


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Here is an organization of thousands of scientists claiming...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=502

Can anyone say consensus?

Or perhaps you prefer some of the voodoo posted above?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Preeminent scientists protest the Bush Administrations abuse of science...

http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=381


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

*More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth*


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 7, 2005)

If we all waited for a 100% consensus on anything in the field of science, which at the higher levels is remarkably democratic, we'd be waiting...well, a very long time.  Is string theory valid if it's descriptive but not testable?  What's the deal with all that dark matter?

OK.  The majority of scientists who discuss global climate change (Note: "global warming" is a sadly popular misnomer - we are talking about increases in climate fluctuation, not in the planet becoming, oh, Venus) agree that something is happening that is different than in the past.  Global temperature increases in the last 3-4 decades have been larger than would be predicted from the data previous to that.  The scientific explanation of "greenhouse gasses" is valid.

Does this mean that the climate does not fluctuate without us?  Of course not.  Does that mean we can say "it's 50% human-induced and 50% 'natural'?"  No.  Should we be concerned when the polar ice caps are melting (and by that, I mean, now)?  Most definetly.  

It's always fun for "armchair generals" (someone refered to me as that once in a different thread, I thought it was a funny term) to talk about what this scientist thinks and what that scientist thinks, and conclude that if there isn't total agreement, there is nothing.  That is, of course, hooey.  

For a decent summary....

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/global_warming/index.cfm

For anyone convinced that to think global climate change is happening is "brainwashed"...well, I don't know what to say, except that maybe you want to actually engage people of differing opinions.

And the "Reason" website is quite amusing in how much it loathes governmental regulations.  To which I say, More mercury in your fish?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.melaniephillips.com/diary/archives/000253.html


> Sir David says the Bush administration should not dismiss global warming because: 1) the ten hottest years on record started in 1991 2) sea levels are rising 3) ice caps are melting and 4) the 'causal link' between man-made emissions and global warming is well established.
> 
> Wrong, wrong, wrong, and wrong. There is no such evidence. The whole thing is a global scam. There is no firm evidence that warming is happening; even if it is, it is most likely to have natural, not man-made causes; carbon dioxide, supposedly the culprit, makes up such a tiny fraction of the atmosphere that even if it were to quadruple, the effect on climate would be negligible; and just about every one of the eco-doomster stories that curdle our blood every five minutes is either speculative, ahistorical or scientifically illiterate.
> 
> ...





> 'One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned with global cooling.
> 
> 'Distinguishing the small recent changes in global mean temperature from the natural variability, which is unknown, is not a trivial task. All attempts so far make the assumption that existing computer climate models simulate natural variability, but I doubt that anyone really believes this assumption.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Eco nuts are so easy to rile up.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Feisty Mouse said:
			
		

> And the "Reason" website is quite amusing in how much it loathes governmental regulations. To which I say, More mercury in your fish?


Certain individuals, particularly those that President Bush put directly in charge of environmental policy of the United States, have spent billions to craft this message.  The bottom line is that they want to pollute for short term profits at the expense of your health and safety.  

There is no solution that can "solve" global warming overnight.  And all of the solution are going to hurt someone...some more then others...like oil, gas and coal corporations...which all happen to be DIRECTLY involved in some of the highest roles in the Bush Administration.

The conflict of interest is absolutely staggering and I can only believe that some people have willingly forgone their ability to reason so they can deliberately ignore it.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Eco nuts are so easy to rile up.


In the future, you are going to get real riled up when some of these policies bear their malformed fruit.  I would say, "time will tell" but that does nothing to defer the price that our children will pay.  

I won't gamble with my kids health...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1017027.stm
Over 1500 years ago the Romans grew wine grapes at Hadrian's Wall and the Vikings grew wine grapes in Norway. There is no way they would grow there today. So climate change happens all the time. We should stop basing totally unscientific deductions on empirical weather data (where the oldest data is barely 300 years old) and start using biological evidence more that goes back much farther. Any self-proclaimed doomsday expert can get his name in the paper by predicting catastrophe. It doesn't mean catastrophe is impossible, it just means we don't know from the source data. 
Conrad, Norway (British)


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> *More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth*


lol, for a site that has things written such as



> specifically an apparent anti-correlation


I'm not amazed.

What exactly is an anti-correlation?  A negative correlation?  A zero correlation?

May sound like nitpicking, but if the writer were in my Research Methods class, that would earn him or her a 0.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Here is some more from RFK jr.  Very well researched...

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1120-01.htm


*



Cooking the Books on Global Warming 

There is no scientific debate in which the White House has cooked the books more than that of global warming. In the past two years the Bush administration has altered, suppressed or attempted to discredit close to a dozen major reports on the subject. These include a ten-year peer-reviewed study by the International Panel on Climate Change, commissioned by the president's father in 1993 in his own efforts to dodge what was already a virtual scientific consensus blaming industrial emissions for global warming. 

After disavowing the Kyoto Protocol, the Bush administration commissioned the federal government's National Academy of Sciences to find holes in the IPCC analysis. But this ploy backfired. The NAS not only confirmed the existence of global warming and its connection to industrial greenhouse gases, it also predicted that the effects of climate change would be worse than previously believed, estimating that global temperatures will rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees by 2100. 

A May 2002 report by scientists from the EPA, NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, approved by Bush appointees at the Council on Environmental Quality and submitted to the United Nations by the U.S., predicted similarly catastrophic impacts. When confronted with the findings, Bush dismissed it with his smirking condemnation: "I've read the report put out by the bureaucracy. . . ." 

Afterward, the White House acknowledged that, in fact, he hadn't. Having failed to discredit the report with this untruth, George W. did what his father had done: He promised to study the problem some more. Last fall, the White House announced the creation of the Climate Research Initiative to study global warming. The earliest results are due next fall. But the White House's draft plan for CRI was derided by the NAS in February as a rehash of old studies and established science lacking "most elements of a strategic plan." 

In September 2002, administration censors released the annual EPA report on air pollution without the agency's usual update on global warming, that section having been deleted by Bush appointees at the White House. On June 19th, 2003, a "State of the Environment" report commissioned by the EPA in 2001 was released after language about global warming was excised by flat-earthers in the White House. The redacted studies had included a 2001 report by the National Research Council, commissioned by the White House. In their place was a piece of propaganda financed by the American Petroleum Institute challenging these conclusions. 

This past July, EPA scientists leaked a study, which the agency had ordered suppressed in May, showing that a Senate plan -- co-sponsored by Republican Sen. John McCain -- to reduce the pollution that causes global warming could achieve its goal at very small cost. Bush reacted by launching a $100 million ten-year effort to prove that global temperature changes have, in fact, occurred naturally, another delay tactic for the fossil-fuel barons at taxpayer expense. Princeton geo-scientist Michael Oppenheimer told me, "This administration likes to emphasize what we don't know while ignoring or minimizing what we do know, which is a prescription for paralysis on policy. It's hard to imagine what kind of scientific evidence would suffice to convince the White House to take firm action on global warming." 

Across the board, the administration yields to Big Energy. At the request of ExxonMobil, and with the help of a lobbying group working for coal-burning utility Southern Co., the Bush administration orchestrated the removal of U.S. scientist Robert Watson, the world-renowned former NASA atmospheric chemist who headed the United Nations' IPCC. He was replaced by a little-known scientist from New Delhi, India, who would be generally unavailable for congressional hearings. The Bush administration now plans to contract out thousands of environmental-science jobs to compliant industry consultants already in the habit of massaging data to support corporate profit-taking, effectively making federal science an arm of Karl Rove's political machine. The very ideologues who derided Bill Clinton as a liar have institutionalized dishonesty and made it the reigning culture of America's federal agencies. "At its worst," Oppenheimer says, "this approach represents a serious erosion in the way a democracy deals with science."
		
Click to expand...

 *


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/1017027.stm
> Over 1500 years ago the Romans grew wine grapes at Hadrian's Wall and the Vikings grew wine grapes in Norway. There is no way they would grow there today. So climate change happens all the time. We should stop basing totally unscientific deductions on empirical weather data (where the oldest data is barely 300 years old) and start using biological evidence more that goes back much farther. Any self-proclaimed doomsday expert can get his name in the paper by predicting catastrophe. It doesn't mean catastrophe is impossible, it just means we don't know from the source data.
> Conrad, Norway (British)


Uummm... scientists have data that goes back much further.  Tree ring data.  Ice core data.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html


> Myth #2: Humans Are Causing Global Warming. Scientists do not agree that humans discernibly influence global climate because the evidence supporting that theory is weak. The scientific experts most directly concerned with climate conditions reject the theory by a wide margin.
> 
> 
> A Gallup poll found that only 17 percent of the members of the Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Society think that the warming of the 20th century has been a result of greenhouse gas emissions - principally CO2 from burning fossil fuels. [See Figure II.]
> ...


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Eco nuts are so easy to rile up.


Well, Tgace, with that one witty and decisive comment [/end sarcasm], you have demonstrated one of two things.

#1 You, as you have stated in the past, are just here on MT to "rile people up", and don't really stand behind, or mean, any of your posts.  So we should disregard what you write.

or 

#2 You are not interested in anyone else's opinions, and any disagreement with you means that the other person is clearly "a nut".  So you're not really interested in a conversation or discussion with all those "nuts" (some of whom might actually be scientists).

Either way, I'm disappointed, it used to be fun to read your posts.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

And from the same source and relevant to the thread.....



> Periodic media reports link human-caused climate changes to more frequent tropical cyclones or more intense hurricanes. Tropical storms depend on warm ocean surface temperatures (at least 26 degrees Celsius) and an unlimited supply of moisture. Therefore, the reasoning goes, global warming leads to increased ocean surface temperatures, a greater uptake of moisture and destructive hurricanes. But recent data show no increase in the number or severity of tropical storms, and the latest climate models suggest that earlier models making such connections were simplistic and thus inaccurate.
> 
> 
> Since the 1940s the National Oceanographic and Meteorological Laboratory has documented a decrease in both the intensity and number of hurricanes.
> ...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Not at all fiesty...just find it interesting how personally involved people can get over their pet topics. And how offended they can get when some person they dont even know disagrees with them over the internet. This is a Martial Arts board for crissakes. People around here need to lighten up....

Im here to share, discuss, and yes sometimes rile people up. Unless Im breaking the rules (in which case I will apologize and learn) read me or dont. Even when I get "into it" with some folks here, I realize this is just an internet board. When the computer is off life goes on.

This is primarily entertainment is it not? Unlike the martial arts sections what besides some debate and "verbal fencing" does anybody hope to accomplish in the study?


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Here is an organization of thousands of scientists claiming...
> 
> http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release.cfm?newsID=502
> 
> ...



consensus my ***...the voodoo posted in post #14 is fact.  i checked the first link you posted above and the material contained therein is just false.  allow me to clarify....

your link states...



> ...recent peer-reviewed research from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology shows that a combined measure of both the duration and intensity of hurricanes has *doubled over the last 30 years*. This trend corresponds to increases in average ocean surface temperatures over the same period. *Most of the strongest hurricanes on record have occurred during the past 10 years*, when ocean surface temperatures reached record levels.



did you even check the hurricane table mentioned in post #14...?  please do.  the statements bolded above are false.  data taken from the NOAA/AOML/Hurricane Research Division proves they are false.  these people are in the business of studying hurricanes, that's it.  it's their job.  i would imagine their numbers are more truthful than those of a "peer-reviewed study".


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 7, 2005)

> To take a few examples from Sir David's litany.
> 
> 1) Sea levels are rising. As this article explains, this claim is not the result of observable data. Like so much of the global warming industry, it is the result of frail computer modelling using dodgy or incomplete data. It is therefore not an observed value, but a wholly artificial model construct. Furthermore, the data fed into the computer is drawn from the atypical North Atlantic basin, ignoring the seas around Australia where levels have remained pretty static. And anyway, as this article explains, sea level rises have nothing to do with warmer climate. Sea levels rose during the last ice age. Warming can actually slow down sea level rise.



I was told about an issue from the R&D department. A guy made a model and had anothe engineer go out and collect data. After collecting the data, the guy from R&D told him his data was wrong, incorrect, or corrupted. He went back and collected the data again. It showed the same thing. After a couple of months of talking to other experts in production development, the data looked right and was what everyone had seen in production. The R&D guy was asked why he knew the data was wrong? He replied he had verified his model. This was early on, then after the couple of months, he was asked again, and what data he had verified his model against? The R&D guy replied he had verified his model against another existing model. 

I would like to see the trends of the old cultures that kept records in the Med, and see if it truly is an issue of errosion of the coast line or the tides rising.



> 2) Ice caps are melting. Some are, some aren't. Some are breaking up, as is normal. But some are actually expanding, as in the Antarctic where the ice sheet is growing, as this article points out. The bit of the Antarctic that is breaking up, the Larsen ice-shelf, which has been causing foaming hysteria among eco-doomsters, won't increase sea levels because it has already displaced its own weight in the sea.



I have stated this before. To test the ice issue, let us conduct an experiment.

Take hot water, boiling if there is an adult around and put into an ice tray. 

Take room temeprature water and fill another ice tray

Take cold water from the refridgerator and fill a third tray.

Place all three trays in the freezer all level and near the center.


Check every five minutes to see which one freezes first, and the size of the ice cubes.

The Biggest ice cubes will come from the cold water. 

Now to conduct this experiment in another manner take 500 ml in a 1000 ml beaker that has measuring on the side. Use hot water and cold water, this will let you see the expension or contraction of the water based upon the temperature when entering the freezer.

Now the Ice in the caps did not flash freeze, so my expectation is that they are displacing more volume as frozen water then as liquid water. The Ice on land needs to be adjusted for, but we need to see what the expected increase in volume when water freezes. This will allow for the understanding of how much of the ice on the land will enter the system of oceans. 



> 3) The hottest years on record started in 1991. Which records? The European climate in the Middle Ages was two degrees hotter than it is now. They grew vines in Northumberland, for heaven's sake. Then there was the Little Ice Age, which lasted until about 1880. So the 0.6% warming since then is part of a pretty normal pattern, and nothing for any normal person to get excited about.



Is this hotter than the ages when Dinosaurs roamed the world?



> 4) The causal link is well established. Totally false. It is simply loudly asserted. Virtually all the scare stuff comes from computer modelling, which is simply inadequate to factor in all the -- literally-- millions of variables that make up climate change. If you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.





> That's why this week's earlier eco-scare story, that more than a million species will become extinct as a result of global warming over the next 50 years, is risible. All that means is that someone has put into the computer the global warming scenario, and the computer has calculated what would happen on the basis of that premise. But -duh! -the premise is totally unproven. The real scientific evidence is that -- we just don't know; and the theories so far, linking man, carbon dioxide and climate warming. are specious. There's some seriously bad science going on in the environmentalist camp



I thought a lot of species died because of change from warmer to colder when man took over as the dominate species.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

here's more enlightening voodoo....oops, i mean facts.

THE DEADLIEST, COSTLIEST, AND MOST INTENSE UNITED STATES HURRICANES FROM 1900 TO 2000


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Dont ya know sapper...the trick is when the data doesnt support your theory, the data must be worng and you need to study it to find an explanation for the error.....data must be wrong because Im always right.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

BTW..all good points there Rich.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> Dont ya know sapper...the trick is when the data doesnt support your theory, the data must be worng and you need to study it to find an explanation for the error.....data must be wrong because Im always right.



aaahhhh....selective scientific reasoning, i get it.

i'm wondering WTF when it comes to RFK Jr. talking science.  all of his BS revolves around politics affecting the environment, especially the Bush administration.  he's a moron.  he needs to check fire and stay in his lane.  the environment is WAY out of his league.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Of course all of this isnt to say that we should be burning up all the fuel we want, cut down all the rain forests, pour chemicals into our waterways etc. However to spread the fear and create the policies that will effect millions of people that this unproven stuff has is ****'ed up.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

kennedy the environmentalist....?  not quite so...the same environmentalist that OPPOSED the building of windmill farms of the coast of cape cod.  to quote him...



> "I definitely support alternative energy,
> but the wind farm plan makes no sense for the public
> because the costs it's going to impose on the people of these regions are so huge."



another case of "not in my backyard"...    friggin hypocrite.



> ROBERT F. Kennedy Jr., a noted environmental attorney, has a new cause: defending Cape Cod property values and yachting from a wind farm project in the waters of Nantucket Sound. His uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., may also weigh in against the project, which threatens to spoil the view from the Kennedy Compound at Hyannis Port just six miles away, as well as the vistas of many expensive homes on Martha's Vineyard, Nantucket and tony Cape Cod retreats.
> 
> The fight is over a proposal to build the first-ever U.S. offshore wind farm, much like the turbines already lining Denmark and Sweden and planned for the British and Irish coasts. Europe has strongly embraced wind to replace fossil fuels and combat global warming. The plan by Cape Wind Associates envisions 130 wind turbines 40 stories tall, spreading over 24 square miles and clearly visible from the shore. Photo simulations show the towers speckling the horizon. They could also make Cape Cod nearly energy self-sufficient.



More about the Kennedy environmental hypocisy...


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

and yet more hypocrisy....



> If it is successful, the Cape Cod wind project would be the nation's first-ever offshore wind farm and its largest renewable energy installation. At maximum production, the farm would be capable of generating a whopping *420 megawatts of electricity*, enough to supply three-quarters of the average total power demand of Cape Cod and two islands off its shores, Martha's Vineyard and Nantucket. Although power generated by the so-called wind park would be funneled into the New England electricity grid (and wouldn't technically supply Cape Cod alone), the project would still prove to the rest of the nation that a community like the one in question, which has 250,000 residents, can *theoretically be nearly energy-independent -- no small feat at a time when global oil supplies are seriously threatened. "This project addresses the biggest problems of our time: global warming and America's crippling dependence on foreign oil," * says Jim Gordon, head of Cape Wind Associates.
> 
> But here's the snag: The wind farm would be located within 13 miles of the shores of two of the most coveted and environmentally protected resort islands in the nation. These shores happen to be the summer playgrounds of the rich and famous, many of whom are wealthy Democrats who donate large sums to environmental organizations. A number of areas within Cape Cod and the islands have some of the most rigorous local development codes and habitat protections in the nation, and the people there -- locals and summer visitors alike -- share a deeply rooted environmental ethos.



http://www.grist.org/news/powers/2002/12/19/griscom-windmill/





> Environmental lawyer Robert Kennedy, Jr., a key figure among those opposed to the project, also argues that the company has failed to conduct a thorough cost-benefit analysis from the standpoint of the locals. "The economic burden this project imposes on the Cape Cod community is enormous -- the injury to marinas, the injury to beaches, the injury to property values." Take, for example, the boating community, says Kennedy: "Why would they want to spend the three weeks of their vacation paddling around in the middle of an industrial zone when they could go someplace pristine?"



"let's save the environment....just, let's not do it near my home, god forbid my $40 million estate lose it's resale value."


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> More about the Kennedy environmental hypocisy...


I hope everyone clicks on this link.  The site is called "Orwell Today" and it is indicative of the kind of things that have been posted in counter point thus far.  Even a cursory fact check turns up outright lies...


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

So Kennedy DOES want the wind farms???


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I hope everyone clicks on this link.  The site is called "Orwell Today" and it is indicative of the kind of things that have been posted in counter point thus far.  Even a cursory fact check turns up outright lies...



the link contains a factual story related to RFK Jr.'s environmental "concerns"...as does the other link posted above.  it makes an appropriate counter point seeing that you started this thread based upon the ramblings of such person being critical of a presidency's stance on related environmental woes.  

at least, if you're going to bring the "save the environment" parade, best to choose someone other than RFK Jr. to lead it.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> So Kennedy DOES want the wind farms???



oh, he's all for alternative forms of energy, just not near his home.  it would spoil the view.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

Hell Im all for alternative energy sources. As long as environmental concerns are balanced with economic concerns.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

oh i agree completely, but i doubt the economic concerns would have impacted this area as much as they would lead others to believe.  it's one of the wealthiest regions in the country, it would have to be a pretty damn large impact.  who knows...

my point behind posting the whole "mindmill" thing was to advise against using RFK Jr. as a poster child of environmental "liberation".

taken from my last posted link:



> Given the prevailing energy policies of the Bush administration, it doesn't seem reasonable to put the project on hold while lobbying for more subsidies. For those who consider global warming an urgent concern, the tradeoffs for this project seem relatively benign. In the end, like Quixote, the opposition might have to come to terms with the fact that windmills, albeit nettlesome, are not in fact destructive beasts. On the contrary: Right now, they may be the best solution we've got.



 :asian:


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> oh, he's all for alternative forms of energy, just not near his home. it would spoil the view.


Could there be other reasons to oppose wind farms in that region???


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

They would rather put them on a Texas ranch???


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

There is a small windmill farm here in WNY. In the middle of farm country, very small "footprint" environmentally. What would be the problem? Which is a bigger concern to the environmentalists...getting away from fossil fuels or the impact of windmill farms? You are going to have to make a decision sooner or later.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Could there be other reasons to oppose wind farms in that region???



not any intelligent ones.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 7, 2005)

Me, I've already made my decision.  Windfarms.  Solar farms.  Hydropower...to an extent.  Geothermal.  We need to be energy farmers, not hunter/gatherers.  Heck, nuclear is even a good option...with new technology that is.

Back on topic...

I wanted to repost this link and discuss it.  For some reason, NOAA's predictions are being ignored...

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

Ask yourselves the following questions...

1.  Does CO^2 in the atmosphere help to trap heat?
2.  Are humans adding CO^2 to the atmosphere?
3.  Are global temperatures changing?
4.  Are there more hurricanes?

Funny how all of those answers are the same...again, see the link above.

upnorthkyosa

PS - While we were arguing, the 15th named storm of the season popped up.  Ophelia.  Only six more until we start back over with the A's...
"Do not look at the man behind the curtain.  DO NOT LOOK AT THE MAN BEHIND THE CURTAIN!!!!!"


----------



## Tgace (Sep 7, 2005)

It hasnt been proven that any of those factors are causal. Or that the human contribution means much as all the stuff previously posted points out.


----------



## CanuckMA (Sep 7, 2005)

OTOH, I've recently heard animal rights wing-nuts oppose wind-farms because the rotating propellers can kill birds  :idunno:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 7, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Me, I've already made my decision.  Windfarms.  Solar farms.  Hydropower...to an extent.  Geothermal.  We need to be energy farmers, not hunter/gatherers.  Heck, nuclear is even a good option...with new technology that is.



Windfarms are good, and need room, so as we get better with the bio-engineered corn we can use mroe room for the windmills. Seriously, they can be put into fields and "Farmed" as you mentioned.

Solar is good as well, and can be used, but the extent of the everyday house hold still needs a little more. Yet a good addition.

Hydropower is good and should be used, yet if some cannot live near the rivers or large bodies of water they have to depend upon it being delivered to them.

As to Geothermal, I have a friend who has an "Earth Home" and it is nice, but uses lots of water, so you need to spend more moeny to get the recycle kits, and this requires even more maintainence. His main heat pump went out and it cost him $10k for a complete new one, and adjusting the system to the new connections. 

No new Nuclear power plants have gone on line since 1979 in the USA (* with the exception of Naval ships *). The issue is the waste, and how to treat it, and process it, to minimuize the "hot damage". 

It is good to think about these new sources, but understand that each has its' own issues as well. 

Nothing will be done about the issues until there is more usage and also more demand.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> It hasnt been proven that any of those factors are causal. Or that the human contribution means much as all the stuff previously posted points out.


This chain of reasoning is pretty sound...Carbon Dioxide traps heat in he atmosphere.  Humans release trapped carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels.  More heat is trapped.  Oceans get "warmer" because more heat is trapped.  Warmer oceans cause more hurricances.

The disagreement is over "how warm?"  NOAA says that a one degree temperature rise is more then enough.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 8, 2005)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm


> Climate changes such as global warming may be due to changes in the sun rather than to the release of greenhouse gases on Earth.
> 
> Climatologists and astronomers speaking at the American Association for the Advancement of Science meeting in Philadelphia say the present warming may be unusual - but a mini ice age could soon follow.
> 
> ...





> They have also studied other sun-like stars and found that they spend significant periods without sunspots at all, so perhaps cool spells should be feared more than global warming.
> 
> The scientists do not pretend they can explain everything, nor do they say that attempts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be abandoned. But they do feel that understanding of our nearest star must be increased if the climate is to be understood.



Sorry....not buying your theory as fact.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Tgace said:
			
		

> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/56456.stm Sorry....not buying your theory as fact.


Everything in that chain of reasoning was a fact.  In fact, it is DIRECTLY measurable.  

Also, this thing is not an all or nothing proposition.  The sun cycle has a contribution that can be measured.  On a graph, if it was regular, it would look like a sine wave.  Global warming takes that sine wave and elevates it.


----------



## Flatlander (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> The sun cycle has a contribution that can be measured. On a graph, if it was regular, it would look like a sine wave.


Do you have a source for this?  I hadn't heard of this particular natural symmetry before, and would like to read up on it.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This chain of reasoning is pretty sound...Carbon Dioxide traps heat in he atmosphere.  Humans release trapped carbon dioxide by burning fossil fuels.  More heat is trapped.  Oceans get "warmer" because more heat is trapped.  Warmer oceans cause more hurricances.
> 
> The disagreement is over "how warm?"  NOAA says that a one degree temperature rise is more then enough.



Then why did the oceans cool back down for a while in the 70's and 80's, and now are back a degree higher?

As to humans releasing more CO2, the more efficient the reaction on the hydrocarbon the more CO2 and H2O produced. 

More CO2 and Sulfur is released from the power plants that burn coal then vehicles, yet power plants are outside of cities or in Down Wind areas already, and everone wants to have a clean coastal city. i.e. SanFranciso, Los Angeles. 

Yet, Oakland is down wind of San Franciso and has always had more polution issues.

As to the human addition to your relationship, you need to understand the relationship between humans and how much CO2 we produce in relationship to other producers, such as Volcanos and natural fires, and ..., .


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Then why did the oceans cool back down for a while in the 70's and 80's, and now are back a degree higher?


Think back to that elevated sine wave.  There are localized dips and rises, but the overall trend is upward.  The NOAA studies take this into account when they talk about global warming and hurricanes.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to humans releasing more CO2, the more efficient the reaction on the hydrocarbon the more CO2 and H2O produced.


Fossil fuel production has never dropped and neither has demand.  The more we burn, the more greenhouse gasses get put into the atmosphere.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> More CO2 and Sulfur is released from the power plants that burn coal then vehicles, yet power plants are outside of cities or in Down Wind areas already, and everone wants to have a clean coastal city. i.e. SanFranciso, Los Angeles.
> 
> Yet, Oakland is down wind of San Franciso and has always had more polution issues..


Greenhouse Gasses operate like...well...gasses.  They diffuse.  Eventually mixing in the atmosphere.  However, certain "lense" effects have been measured...raising local temps.  JFK jr. mentions one in the initial post.  He seems to believe that this help make the hurricane worse.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to the human addition to your relationship, you need to understand the relationship between humans and how much CO2 we produce in relationship to other producers, such as Volcanos and natural fires, and ...


Volcanoes, fires, and ocean solution fluctuations can release CO2 into the atmosphere and all of these have caused the greenhouse effect to increase in the past.  In fact, a single large volcanic eruption could cause unprecedented global warming...after the volcanic winters.  However, the measureable increases in greenhouse gasses in the last few hundred years have come mostly from one source...humans.  We are a year after year, regular phenomenon, that keeps putting an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Think back to that elevated sine wave.  There are localized dips and rises, but the overall trend is upward.  The NOAA studies take this into account when they talk about global warming and hurricanes.



I would like to see this trend from the last minor ice age. Is there data from before the last localized ice age about temperature fluctuations?

Can we guess about the different ages of the earth and the average temperature?



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Fossil fuel production has never dropped and neither has demand.  The more we burn, the more greenhouse gasses get put into the atmosphere.



And my comment was using the simple logic of only looking at the surface, if you are worried about Greeenhouse gases then we should go back to the old ways of doing things and get 8 miles per gallon, and less efficient engines which produce less CO2. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Greenhouse Gasses operate like...well...gasses.  They diffuse.  Eventually mixing in the atmosphere.  However, certain "lense" effects have been measured...raising local temps.  JFK jr. mentions one in the initial post.  He seems to believe that this help make the hurricane worse.



Yes, one or two people can make a conjecture, and be in the news. I agree it should be investgated but I have not seen enough of a trend form the data to confirm anything. I have seen enough of a trend to see investigation. 




			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Volcanoes, fires, and ocean solution fluctuations can release CO2 into the atmosphere and all of these have caused the greenhouse effect to increase in the past.  In fact, a single large volcanic eruption could cause unprecedented global warming...after the volcanic winters.  However, the measureable increases in greenhouse gasses in the last few hundred years have come mostly from one source...humans.  We are a year after year, regular phenomenon, that keeps putting an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gas into the atmosphere.



So Mt. St Helen's caused a Winter? Yet the gases caused changes to the atmosphere, and have ew studied them as well?


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Global Warming and Ophelia

1.  If you go back before industrialization occured, natural sources of CO2 are going to dominate.  Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution.

2.  Or we could find ways to live our lives without emitting greenhouse gasses.  There is no need to roll back "progress".

3.  Local Warming is controversial I think.  I'll see what I can find out about it.

4.  St. Helens lowered global temps with the amount of dust in threw in the air.  This counteracted the effects of the CO2 in put in the air.  When the dust fell, the gas mixed into the atmosphere.  Some graphs posted earlier show a spike in temp and emission during the eruption.  The spike was small.  Large eruptions can be much worse.  See the eruption of Toba for instance...


----------



## Rich Parsons (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Global Warming and Ophelia
> 
> 1.  If you go back before industrialization occured, natural sources of CO2 are going to dominate.  Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution.



_Post industrialization, humans have added their contribution. _

Are they the dominate?


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 8, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I wanted to repost this link and discuss it. For some reason, NOAA's predictions are being ignored...
> 
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html


If you look at the study, you will find several things.

1. Their model is based on the assumption that global warming exists. Therefore it is tautological to say it supports the argument of global warming. The model they use is one that predicts global warming and the conclusion was after 80 years on the projected model.

2. The focus of the study is to find out what effects global warming potentially may have on hurricanes, assuming it exists. Not whether it does exist or has had an impact at all. In fact, they say historically, it has not.

3. Their model was for "idealized hurricanes". In other words, worst-case scenarios in a controlled model where the myriad of other factors that make predicting weather so unreliable were not included. Do you know what made Hurricane Katrina go down from 5 to 4? A puff of dry air from the continent. Just that. Very random.

4. They found it didn't have any relation to the number of hurricanes which would occur.

5. In the most extreme of cases, surface winds were only increased by a mere 6% after 80 years of continuous global warming using the model they based their assumption on. Looking at Katrina if it were a model, you can take off 6% of the previoius total (135 mph) and it still would be a category 4 hurricane. Note that the dry puff of air from the continent knocked off 30 mph. But again, you can't even say the increase from 135 to 145 was due to global warming because that is a "worst-case scenario" in a model which eliminates other mitigating factors. Furthermore, that 6% increase isn't even now...it is 80 years from now.

6. Again, this study was to say "What if?" "What if" we took all C02 increases and global warming (human and natural) accepted in our assumptions and in the absence of any other factors, let us look at how it would affect hurricanes. The answer is not much, even if it does exist.

7. That is why the findings are being ignored.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 8, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> 1. Their model is based on the assumption that global warming exists. Therefore it is tautological to say it supports the argument of global warming. The model they use is one that predicts global warming and the conclusion was after 80 years on the projected model.


Global warming as in the Greenhouse effect is a known fact.  CO2 traps heat.  More CO2 traps more heat.  Its as simple as that.



> 2. The focus of the study is to find out what effects global warming potentially may have on hurricanes, assuming it exists. Not whether it does exist or has had an impact at all. In fact, they say historically, it has not.


Ok



> 3. Their model was for "idealized hurricanes". In other words, worst-case scenarios in a controlled model where the myriad of other factors that make predicting weather so unreliable were not included. Do you know what made Hurricane Katrina go down from 5 to 4? A puff of dry air from the continent. Just that. Very random.


Of course, there are other factors that can make hurricanes worse...the bottom line is that an "Idealized Hurricane" is a run of the mill average hurricane created by averaging a huge pool of data.  General principles of hurricanes can be divined from this.



> 4. They found it didn't have any relation to the number of hurricanes which would occur.


Here is what they actually said...



> An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to a gradually *increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms*.





> 5. In the most extreme of cases, surface winds were only increased by a mere 6% after 80 years of continuous global warming using the model they based their assumption on. Looking at Katrina if it were a model, you can take off 6% of the previoius total (135 mph) and it still would be a category 4 hurricane. Note that the dry puff of air from the continent knocked off 30 mph. But again, you can't even say the increase from 135 to 145 was due to global warming because that is a "worst-case scenario" in a model which eliminates other mitigating factors. Furthermore, that 6% increase isn't even now...it is 80 years from now.


They used an extremely conservative estimate.  A 1% increase in CO2 could be acheived by population growth alone.  It does not take into account the skyrocketing demand for oil and coal.  Nor does it take into account the fact that so many other countries are attempting to industrialize.  



> 6. Again, this study was to say "What if?" "What if" we took all C02 increases and global warming (human and natural) accepted in our assumptions and in the absence of any other factors, let us look at how it would affect hurricanes. The answer is not much, even if it does exist.


A 1% increase is tiny and probably unrealistic.  As China and India ramp up their economies we can really expect that number to rise.



> 7. That is why the findings are being ignored.


I doubt it.  Take a look again at figure 1 in the website and imagine what it would look like with a 2% increase.  3%.  4%.  5%!  This isn't unrealistic.  People around the world want to be industrialized and the cheapest and easiest way is through fossil fuels.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 8, 2005)

hey upnorthkyosa,

you need to take a look at the NWS hurricane website.  please note that the number catastrophic hurricanes has *DECLINED* over the last decade.  this isn't theory, or speculation, or biased reasoning; this is fact.  it's in the numbers; they are getting *SMALLER*, how hard is this to fathom?


----------



## Tgace (Sep 8, 2005)

http://www.clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/global_warming.html



> The "greenhouse effect" actually is a bit player in global climate (although without it's benefits the average temperature of the Earth would be minus 18° C). Human's did not cause the greenhouse effect, but critics maintain human additions to atmospheric greenhouse gases may cause global temperatures to rise too much.
> 
> Generally understood, but rarely publicized is the fact that 95% of the greenhouse effect is due solely to natural water vapor. Of the remaining 5%, only 0.2% to 0.3% of the greenhouse effect (depending on whose numbers you use) is due to emissions of carbon dioxide and other gases from human sources. If we are in fact in a global warming crisis, even the most aggressive and costly proposals for limiting industrial carbon dioxide emissions would have an undetectable effect on global climate. However, significant efforts to limit the emission of greenhouse gases in the United States are currently underway.


----------



## Shorin Ryuu (Sep 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Global warming as in the Greenhouse effect is a known fact. CO2 traps heat. More CO2 traps more heat. Its as simple as that.


No, it isn't. That is why the human-induced C02 greenhouse gas global warming debate is known as "junk science". You never did answer my objections I raised to that laughable "hockey stick" graph used so often in Kyoto.



> Here is what they actually said...
> 
> An implication of these studies is that if the frequency of tropical cyclones remains the same over the coming century, a greenhouse-gas induced warming may lead to a gradually *increasing risk in the occurrence of highly destructive category-5 storms*.


What that does mean is that any hurricane around 145-155 mph (the majority of the difference between present day and the 80 years from now model) may or may not be bumped to around 160-165 mph (over 155 is what makes it category 5). As mentioned above, the number of catastrophic hurricanes has actually been declining. Furthermore, the statistical probability of a hurricane at any level is equal. That's a fancy way of saying just because there is the chance, it doesn't even mean they will occur.

Furthermore, it goes on to say "CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come. Related to this issue, SSTs over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999)."

Models for human-induced CO2 global warming has to come from somewhere, right? The supposed junk science of these models cite "unprecedented" rises in C02 levels from industrialization. So why wasn't there a dramatic rise in the past?

I also looked at your ice core data you provided earlier on. As expected, the CO2 level graphs do not correlate with global temperature. It totally ignores things like the Medieval Warm Period in which temperatures were much warmer than now, yet the CO2 data indicated lower levels for that time.



> They used an extremely conservative estimate. A 1% increase in CO2 could be acheived by population growth alone. It does not take into account the skyrocketing demand for oil and coal. Nor does it take into account the fact that so many other countries are attempting to industrialize.
> A 1% increase is tiny and probably unrealistic. As China and India ramp up their economies we can really expect that number to rise.


Even if your argument is valid (which I don't agree with), to argue that the U.S. is at fault for not signing Kyoto is to ignore the fact that developing countries (China and India) are exempt. Therefore even if we did everything we could, it still wouldn't matter because China and India's output would dwarf ours immensely. Of course, it is a moot point because none of the CO2 data correlates with temperature. You have often said that there is a cyclical temperature rise and fall, yet CO2 makes the whole system higher in temperature each time. This isn't true...

I am starting to lose interest in the debate. I, and others, keep bringing up facts and data, but you either ignore them, address them with incorrect data, or change the direction of the argument. I could sit here all day and bring up damning evidence against your arguments, but you would never change your opinion. So, I leave this thread in the capable hands of other, more active posters who are already doing a sound job of demonstrating the human-induced global warming via greenhouse gases argument is simply junk science.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

*Three Views on Global Warming
Research, and Life Experiences, Put Scientists at Odds*


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

http://www.lewrockwell.com/miller/miller16.html


> Policy makers and environmentalists claim that a "consensus of a very large group of scientists" agrees that greenhouse gas emissions are causing global warming. In his Caltech lecture, Dr. Crichton says, *"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough."* Hes right. Furthermore, the proclaimed consensus for global warming is bogus: 1,500 scientists (of whom only 181 work in fields related to climatology) signed a pro-global warming petition in 1997, but 19,000 scientists signed a petition a year later opposing the U.N.s Kyoto Treaty Against Global Warming.


 


> Why do so many people (including those 1,500 scientists) believe in global warming? One reason, as one of the characters in State of Fear puts it, is that "all reality is media reality." People who get their information from watching television and reading the New York Times do not learn the true facts of the matter. Media reality says there is man-made global warming, which if not constrained will be catastrophic.
> 
> For some scientists their views on *this subject can affect their livelihood. Government and NGOs (non-governmental organizations) award $2 billion in grants each year for climate research. These organizations expect the scientists they fund to support the idea that global warming is a problem.* As Michael Crichton points out (in his Caltech lecture), we now live in an "anything-goes world where science  or non-science  is the hand maiden of questionable public policy *Evidentiary uncertainties are glossed over in the unseemly rush for an overarching policy, and for grants to support the policy by delivering findings that are desired by the patron."*


Hmmmm....



> Global warming also has ideological underpinnings. *"Environmentalism is the last refuge of socialism,"* as one observer puts it. *Although socialism may have failed as an economic model, many believe it can halt man-made global warming and, by this means, reform civilization.*Constraining CO2 greenhouse gas emissions, as stipulated in the Kyoto Treaty, will require a kind of global governance that only a socialist state can provide  a totalitarian global bureaucracy with international government inspectors at ones doorstep that closely regulates, prosecutes, and confiscates property of people and industries that make "greedy [CO2 producing] choices" (like driving SUVs). The apparatchiks of this movement  lawyers, bureaucrats, environmentalists, and media people  use scare tactics as part of a "global warming sales campaign" to promote their agenda and acquire influence. As Professor Norman Hoffman in State of Fear points out, fear is one of the best managers of social control in a states armamentarium.


BINGO!


----------



## michaeledward (Sep 9, 2005)

You know, I have never caught an Atlantic Salmon; this is the King of Fish. Spawned in the tiny tributary streams of the Northern Atlantic Oceans, the fish mature, and migrate out into the Ocean. After feeding along the coast of Greenland in the Spring they return to their home river to spawn. 

In the past, the Salmon return to their home rivers was as predictable as a clock. If you were standing on the banks of the Miramichi river during the third week of June, the Salmon would be beginning their run up the river.; every year, year after year.

Well, that's not happening anymore. The run is not so regular now; sometimes it starts in June, sometimes not til later in July. 

Sure, there are some other theories as to why this is happening, but changes in the ocean tempurature, are at least as plausible as any others. 

Not very scientific, but it works for me, til I hear something more likely.


----------



## Tgace (Sep 9, 2005)

Well..evidence does show that temperatures are changing. What I dont buy (nor do many scientists) is that its "proven" that humans are the driving cause.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> you need to take a look at the NWS hurricane website. please note that the number catastrophic hurricanes has *DECLINED* over the last decade. this isn't theory, or speculation, or biased reasoning; this is fact. it's in the numbers; they are getting *SMALLER*, how hard is this to fathom?


We are on the fifteenth named storm of the year.  This is an all time record...surpassing the record set last year.  I would love to see a link to the information you just made up.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Shorin Ryuu said:
			
		

> No, it isn't. That is why the human-induced C02 greenhouse gas global warming debate is known as "junk science". You never did answer my objections I raised to that laughable "hockey stick" graph used so often in Kyoto.


 
CO2 traps heat.  More CO2 traps more heat.  Humans are putting more CO2 into the atmosphere.  It doesn't get any clearer then that.  



> What that does mean is that any hurricane around 145-155 mph (the majority of the difference between present day and the 80 years from now model) may or may not be bumped to around 160-165 mph (over 155 is what makes it category 5). As mentioned above, the number of catastrophic hurricanes has actually been declining.


 
We have better warnings, better flood control technology, and better forecasts.  Catastrophic hurricanes aren't just measured by their strength.  They are measured by the amount of life lost and damage done.  Great steps have been taken to deal with this.



> Furthermore, the statistical probability of a hurricane at any level is equal. That's a fancy way of saying just because there is the chance, it doesn't even mean they will occur.


Its a prediction, not a vision.  



> Furthermore, it goes on to say "CO2-induced tropical cyclone intensity changes are unlikely to be detectable in historical observations and will probably not be detectable for decades to come. Related to this issue, SSTs over the North Atlantic tropical storm basin have not exhibited a significant warming trend over the past half century (e.g., Knutson et al. 1999)."


Water has a higher specific heat then air.  The atmosphere can warm much quicker.  Thus, there is a lag time between the warming of the atmosphere and the warming of the ocean.  It has been shown that climatic temperatures have climbed quickly in the last 100 years and THIS YEAR we have some of the highest ocean temps ever recorded.  



> Models for human-induced CO2 global warming has to come from somewhere, right? The supposed junk science of these models cite "unprecedented" rises in C02 levels from industrialization. So why wasn't there a dramatic rise in the past?


 
There are more people now then ever before that are seeking to industrialize.  Six billion people on the planet would like a peice of the pie.  This is the source of the unprecedented rise.  



> I also looked at your ice core data you provided earlier on. As expected, the CO2 level graphs do not correlate with global temperature. It totally ignores things like the Medieval Warm Period in which temperatures were much warmer than now, yet the CO2 data indicated lower levels for that time.


If you go back before the period of industrialization, the system fluctuates in a more natural way.  Afterward, the human effect gets more pronounced and the graphs do correlate nicely.



> Even if your argument is valid (which I don't agree with), to argue that the U.S. is at fault for not signing Kyoto is to ignore the fact that developing countries (China and India) are exempt. Therefore even if we did everything we could, it still wouldn't matter because China and India's output would dwarf ours immensely.


By signing Kyoto, the US could have led the way to a cleaner future.  We are the richest country in the world and we are the biggest emmitter of greenhouse gasses.  We could have used our resources to give our children a better legacy.



> Of course, it is a moot point because none of the CO2 data correlates with temperature.


Yeah, especially when you ignore that it does.



> You have often said that there is a cyclical temperature rise and fall, yet CO2 makes the whole system higher in temperature each time. This isn't true.


Ice core data going back into the Eocene shows that amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere surely did have an effect on global temperature.  However, it is not the only thing that can effect global temperature. 



> I am starting to lose interest in the debate. I, and others, keep bringing up facts and data, but you either ignore them, address them with incorrect data, or change the direction of the argument.


Actually, I am the only one who has posted an actual study in this debate.  I am the only one who has actually posted a graph or any data.  Most rebuttles have come come from right-wing echo chambers and were written by people with little or no scientific training.  



> I could sit here all day and bring up damning evidence against your arguments, but you would never change your opinion.


Bring on some real arguments with some real data and you might change my opinion.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 9, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> We are on the fifteenth named storm of the year.  This is an all time record...surpassing the record set last year.  I would love to see a link to the information you just made up.



look it up.  the link is in this thread.

and i didn't make up anything, it's right in front of your eyes on the NWS website.


----------



## Sapper6 (Sep 9, 2005)

> Actually, I am the only one who has posted an actual study in this debate. I am the only one who has actually posted a graph or any data. Most rebuttles have come come from right-wing echo chambers and were written by people with little or no scientific training.



BS.  i've posted two links to the National Hurricane Center that reflects number of hurricanes by scale and years that proves the material you've posted and linked to is false.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 9, 2005)

Sapper6 said:
			
		

> BS. i've posted two links to the National Hurricane Center that reflects number of hurricanes by scale and years that proves the material you've posted and linked to is false.


You might want to take a look at the criteria they use to judge hurricanes...then think about how things have changed over the last century.  Your ONE study doesn't really address much other then the fact that we have better technology.


----------



## Makalakumu (Sep 19, 2005)

Paper on Global Warming and Hurricanes

Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanes


----------



## tradrockrat (Sep 19, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> Paper on Global Warming and Hurricanes
> 
> Global Warming Causes Stronger Hurricanes


Here's a quote from your own article.



> Meteorologist Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, notes inevitable reservations about such indirectly measured records. And modeler Thomas Knutson of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory in Princeton, New Jersey, says, "We would not have expected the signal [of storm intensification] to be detectable at the present time," based on theory and his modeling of storms under a growing greenhouse. That, he says, prompts the question, "Are these trends real?"
> In any case, no one, including Webster and Emanuel, is claiming that these two positive results suffice to link global warming firmly to tropical cyclone intensification. Webster, for one, would first want to understand exactly how warming waters could trigger such a large response.


----------

