Global Warming?

[turnkey4099]

FYI..."persuasiveness" is directly proportional to ones gullibility...especially when incomplete and inconclusive data is the basis for being persuaded/misguided....

You managed to read that article with all that sand around your head?

Harry K

 

[Rainbody]

Try again
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/On_The_Hijacking_of_the_American_Meteorological_Society.pdf

Heres a paragraph cut from the report

We AMS members have allowed a small group of AMS administrators, climate modelers, and CO2 warming sympathizers to maneuver the internal workings of our society to support AGW policies irrespective of what our rank-and-file members might think. This small organized group of AGW sympathizers has indeed hijacked our society.

How about this one?

CO2 is not a pollutant but a fertilizer. Humankind needs fossil-fuel energy to maintain its industrial lifestyle and to expand this lifestyle in order to be able to better handle these many other non-CO2 environmental problems. There appears to be a misconception among many people that by reducing CO2 we are dealing with our most pressing environmental problem. Not so.

Or this

Obtaining a Balanced View on AGW. To understand what is really occurring with regards to the AGW question one must now bypass the AMS, the mainstream media, and the mainline scientific journals. They have mostly been preconditioned to accept the AGW hypothesis and, in general, frown on anyone not agreeing that AGW is, next to nuclear war, our society’s most serious long range problem.

I won't even touch on the James Hansen stuff
Ok maybe I will.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/20...y-gives-james-hansen-its-top-honor/?mobile=wp
This guy cooked the model to show a temp rise and he's got an award for modeling?

 

[Gator6x4]

(1) Scientific studies have shown:

"The Holocene Climate Optimum (HCO) was a warm period during roughly the interval 9,000 to 5,000 years B.P. This event has also been known by many other names, including: Hypsithermal, Altithermal, Climatic Optimum, Holocene Optimum, Holocene Thermal Maximum, and Holocene Megathermal.

This warm period was followed by a gradual decline until about two millennia ago.

West African sediments additionally record the "African Humid Period", an interval between 16,000 and 6,000 years ago when Africa was much wetter due to a strengthening of the African monsoon by changes in summer radiation resulting from long-term variations in the Earth's orbit around the sun. During this period, the "Green Sahara" was dotted with numerous lakes containing typical African lake crocodile and hippopotamus fauna. A curious discovery from the marine sediments is that the transitions into and out of this wet period occurred within decades, not millennia as previously thought.

In the far southern hemisphere (e.g. New Zealand and Antarctica), the warmest period during the Holocene appears to have been roughly 8,000 to 10,500 years ago, immediately following the end of the last ice age.

By 6,000 years ago, the time normally associated with the Holocene Climatic Optimum in the Northern Hemisphere, these regions had reached temperatures similar to those existing in the modern era, and did not participate in the temperature changes of the North. However, some authors have used the term "Holocene Climatic Optimum" to describe this earlier southern warm period as well.

This climatic event was probably a result of predictable changes in the Earth's orbit (Milankovitch cycles) and a continuation of changes that caused the end of the last glacial period.

The effect would have had maximum Northern Hemisphere heating 9,000 years ago when axial tilt was 24° and nearest approach to the Sun (perihelion) was during boreal summer. The calculated Milankovitch Forcing would have provided 8% more solar radiation (+40 W/m2) to the Northern Hemisphere in summer, tending to cause greater heating at that time. There does seem to have been the predicted southward shift in the global band of thunderstorms called the Intertropical convergence zone.

However, orbital forcing would predict maximum climate response several thousand years earlier than those observed in the Northern Hemisphere. This delay may be a result of the continuing changes in climate as the Earth emerged from the last glacial period and related to ice-albedo feedback. It should also be noted that different sites often show climate changes at somewhat different times and lasting for different durations.

At some locations, climate changes associated with this event may have begun as early as 11,000 years ago, or persisted until 4,000 years before present. As noted above, the warmest interval in the far south significantly preceded warming in the North.

While there do not appear to have been significant temperature changes at most low latitude sites, other climate changes have been reported. These include significantly wetter conditions in Africa, Australia, and Japan and desert-like conditions in the Midwestern United States. Areas around the Amazon in South America also show temperature increases and drier conditions."

(2) Just as scientific studies have shown mankind is currently on the pathway to destroying the environment on Earth needed to foster and support life. If we do not believe current scientific studies, why should we believe previous ones? Who knows, thousands of years from now someone may be sending a "Rover" to Earth to see if it can be determined what destroyed life on Earth as we are today doing by sending probes to the Moon and Mars.

So why don't we discard all scientific studies, historical data and other information and proceed on a daily basic and when the environment is destroyed complain because no one said or did anything about it.

 

[/pine]

You managed to read that article with all that sand around your head?

Harry K

:laughing: ...Your problem is that so many like you are so misguided you are incapable of realizing the fact...

Those that question the viability of AGW do not have their heads in the sand like the al gore disciples (shorts sniffers) ...it will be eons before there is enough data to arrive at a conclusive verdict either way...so the point is moot...

Is your nickmane "Henny"? (as in penny) :laughing:

 

[toppop52]

People that believe in AGW are locked in to it, they can see no other possibility, however those that don't have the whole world of evidence and possibilities to study and understand what happens. So who has their heads in the sand?

What the AGW people seem to miss is that most of us don't argue that there is warming, of course the earth warms. It also cools and freezes, always has, always will.

 

[toppop52]

People that believe in AGW are locked in to it, they can see no other possibility, however those that don't have the whole world of evidence and possibilities to study and understand what happens. So who has their heads in the sand?

What the AGW people seem to miss is that most of us don't argue that there is warming, of course the earth warms. It also cools and freezes, always has, always will.

 

[turnkey4099]

And what you deniers seem to miss is tht the RATE of change now far exceeds anything seen in the past records (over 100,000 years of them in ice cores).
Harry K

 

[toppop52]

And what you deniers seem to miss is tht the RATE of change now far exceeds anything seen in the past records (over 100,000 years of them in ice cores).
Harry K

That's not what they were saying about the Antarctic ice cores at all, instead they said this was a normal warming cycle. By the way, the Iceland cores and Greenland cores show more rapid warming 10000 years ago than now.

 

[Egon]

FYI..."persuasiveness" is directly proportional to ones gullibility...especially when incomplete and inconclusive data is the basis for being persuaded/misguided....

The challenged Gullible!

Now that we know persuasion is their downfall what/how are the non gullible persuaded they are non gullible??:confused3::shocked:

 

[/pine]

The challenged Gullible!

Now that we know persuasion is their downfall what/how are the non gullible persuaded they are non gullible??:confused3::shocked:

The much more important question is just WHO is trying to persuade those that are capable of seeing the bigger picture, what is their ultimate agenda and how will/can they profit from it???

just curious if you're familiar with 'Robert Essenhigh's' theory ? Google

 

[Dustier]

You guys are funny.:laughing:

 

[Egon]

The much more important question is just WHO is trying to persuade those that are capable of seeing the bigger picture, what is their ultimate agenda and how will/can they profit from it???

just curious if you're familiar with 'Robert Essenhigh's' theory ? Google

Hmm, don't see any answere there, just another question.

Don't recall meeting this Robert fellow but If you want you can tell him it's ok to contact me for the "Reske theory"!:thumbsup:

 

[toppop52]

The much more important question is just WHO is trying to persuade those that are capable of seeing the bigger picture, what is their ultimate agenda and how will/can they profit from it???

just curious if you're familiar with 'Robert Essenhigh's' theory ? Google

"At 6 billion tons, humans are then responsible for a comparatively small amount - less than 5 percent - of atmospheric carbon dioxide," he said. "And if nature is the source of the rest of the carbon dioxide, then it is difficult to see that man-made carbon dioxide can be driving the rising temperatures. In fact, I don't believe it does."

He's correct, only those with political/monetary agenda's and their followers don't understand this.

 

[toppop52]

Hmm, don't see any answere there, just another question.

Don't recall meeting this Robert fellow but If you want you can tell him it's ok to contact me for the "Reske theory"!:thumbsup:

Why does it not surprise one that you would see no answers there?

 

[Egon]

Why does it not surprise one that you would see no answers there?

Well then, show me the answere?

 

[toppop52]

Well then, show me the answere?

Which answer are you seeking? The meaning of life perhaps? How do you cure a natural cycle?

 

[Dustier]

Beneath Melting Antarctica, a Powerful Greenhouse Gas Lurks

An enormous and previously unknown reservoir of potent methane - a� greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide - could be locked beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, a new study in the journal Nature warns.

The scientists behind the study calculate that as much as 4 billion tons of methane gas could exist beneath the ice, and that if the alarming rate of polar melting continues and the vast reserve escapes into the atmosphere, the feedback loop of climate change already underway would be dramatically excellerated.

If the scientists are correct, these southern deposits would roughly match recent estimates of the amount of methane lurking beneath the northern Arctic ice sheets.

典here痴 a potentially large pool of methane hydrate in part of the Earth where we haven稚 previously considered it, said Jemma Wadham, professor of Glaciology at the U.K.痴 University of Bristol and lead author of the study, in a telephone interview with Bloomberg. 泥epending on where that hydrate is, and how much there is, if the ice thins in those regions, some of that hydrate could come out with a possible feedback on climate.

As the Press Association reports, the organic material in which the methane remains trapped "dates back to a period 35 million years ago when the Antarctic was much warmer than it is today and teeming with life."

 

[Egon]

Which answer are you seeking? The meaning of life perhaps? How do you cure a natural cycle?

Just the answere to what was asked.

 

[toppop52]

Beneath Melting Antarctica, a Powerful Greenhouse Gas Lurks

An enormous and previously unknown reservoir of potent methane - a� greenhouse gas 25 times more potent than carbon dioxide - could be locked beneath the Antarctic ice sheet, a new study in the journal Nature warns.

The scientists behind the study calculate that as much as 4 billion tons of methane gas could exist beneath the ice, and that if the alarming rate of polar melting continues and the vast reserve escapes into the atmosphere, the feedback loop of climate change already underway would be dramatically excellerated.

If the scientists are correct, these southern deposits would roughly match recent estimates of the amount of methane lurking beneath the northern Arctic ice sheets.

典here痴 a potentially large pool of methane hydrate in part of the Earth where we haven稚 previously considered it, said Jemma Wadham, professor of Glaciology at the U.K.痴 University of Bristol and lead author of the study, in a telephone interview with Bloomberg. 泥epending on where that hydrate is, and how much there is, if the ice thins in those regions, some of that hydrate could come out with a possible feedback on climate.

As the Press Association reports, the organic material in which the methane remains trapped "dates back to a period 35 million years ago when the Antarctic was much warmer than it is today and teeming with life."

It's happened before during natural cycles, the dinosaurs enjoyed the tropical weather.

 

[toppop52]

Just the answere to what was asked.

You can't cure natural cycles. And quit writing Canadian!