Global Warming News

[20 20]

Ken45101; my point is population compared to natural resource, our ancestor had much more freedom and natural resources. The timber logs of yesteryear were double in size compared to todays. I can take folks up our road and show what is being clear cut, some of it isn't even 8" around at the base. They log an area and are back in 10 years, all this is done without reforesting . I know there are companys that practice good forestry habbits, but they are few and far between especially in this area. I also remember those old gas comercials, they were money makers, some things never change

I don't give a ratz bum if I sound like a hippy mushroom head or any other names folks want to call me. I cut wood and run a mill, I also try to give back what ever I take, not like walcrap or anyother corporation. I have children and hope to some day have grand children etc.... I sure don't want to be like some and leave a garbage dump full of toxic waste for them. Just because we were lied to by an entity that allways lies to us doesn't mean we should just shrug the environmental issues off.

 

[20 20]

Heck I remember when I was a little guy, we'd be out in the woods way back in. We'd be thirsty, there'd be a creek, all we'd do is bent down and take a drink. How many can still do this today????????????? Does that help show my point of view better?

 

[texbaylea]

Ken45101; my point is population compared to natural resource, our ancestor had much more freedom and natural resources. The timber logs of yesteryear were double in size compared to todays. I can take folks up our road and show what is being clear cut, some of it isn't even 8" around at the base. They log an area and are back in 10 years, all this is done without reforesting . I know there are companys that practice good forestry habbits, but they are few and far between especially in this area. I also remember those old gas comercials, they were money makers, some things never change

I don't give a ratz bum if I sound like a hippy mushroom head or any other names folks want to call me. I cut wood and run a mill, I also try to give back what ever I take, not like walcrap or anyother corporation. I have children and hope to some day have grand children etc.... I sure don't want to be like some and leave a garbage dump full of toxic waste for them. Just because we were lied to by an entity that allways lies to us doesn't mean we should just shrug the environmental issues off.

I am not shrugging off the real issues but lets not bankrupt this nation based on corrupt science and its promulgators. Let's put our efforts where we will make a real difference. It is the corrupt science that is the most immediate threat, that and our corrupt Congress. After that, we can maybe make a real difference.

Vernon

 

[20 20]

I am not shrugging off the real issues but lets not bankrupt this nation based on corrupt science and its promulgators. Let's put our efforts where we will make a real difference. It is the corrupt science that is the most immediate threat, that and our corrupt Congress. After that, we can maybe make a real difference.

Vernon

I completely agree, but we do not have to spend to help, infact just the opposite. Some where, we as a nation have lost the ability to be responsible. In order for anything to happen we have to have some one holding our hand or telling us what to do. Could you imagine where we'd be if our ancestors thought this way? Take 9-11 for example how many folks freakout and bought duct tabe and plastic? How many bought into the fear of the colors? How many advertisements are out there right now that use fear to sell an idea? Global warming could be an issue but most people wouldn't pay attention unless it was sold to them. Like I said before I'm just as mad about being lied to as the other guy, but what's new. We need to take anything that the government shoves down our throat with a grain of salt, 9 times out of 10 it's just another way to feed the fat cats more $$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Now lets get to the real bottom of this story was it a scientist that sold us a bunch of crap or was it big brother. Easier to blame the small guy, don't ya think? Funny how things get backing{$$$} until the going gets rough. I probably should stop before the black SUV comes down the drive

 

[keegs]

Climate Change, we used to call it weather! That was before the Kool Aid Drinkers found a new reason to hate the rest of us that are normal.
I wonder how they did aerial surveys in the 1600's to count the trees?

Stim...I take it you live on a house boat....

 

[weldingisfun]

I did look up forest land compared to 1600 and today. There was 1billion acres of forest in the US, now there is 700million acres. The biggest loss is on the eastern coast. Now this does not seem to be much loss, but take population into account. In 1600 there would have been 50+acres of forest for every person, compared to today at only 2.3 acres for each person. This only cover the US I can only imagine where the rest of the world stands, england would be a good example or india or japan or......... 50 acres could build some nice homes, 2.3 acres would not be enough for a garage. Of course luckily we have other building materials at hand, but at what cost?

Gee, I would really like to see those satellite pictures from 1600 that show the 1billion acres of forest.

 

[Ken45101]

I agree with Vernon.

The timber logs of yesteryear were double in size compared to todays. I can take folks up our road and show what is being clear cut, some of it isn't even 8" around at the base.

Just because they are cutting trees earlier isn't a sign of bad ecological practice. In fact, a mature "climax forest" is less critter friendly than a young forest. Typically where they clear cut a forest and let it regenerate (naturally or with help), it's heaven for wildlife with much more wildlife than a forest with 36" trees.

Browsing creatures (deer, moose, elk) cannot live in a mature forest. OTOH, young seedlings and saplings are a wonderful environment for them.

Ken

 

[TCowner]

I'm one of the skeptics of the science as well. But I've always wondered though, What if Al Gore is right?

I'm a winter enthusiast. Crazy as it may seem, it's my favorite season. So the warmer winters we've experienced in Minnesota have concerned me but I also remember some warm snow-free winters in the 1960s that went along with the rough ones as well. So its hard to know with a planet billions and billions of year old exactly what is normal.

As one who actually enjoys winter, I am in the minority. Most of the people I work with hate living in Minnesota from November 1 to about April 15. But many of these same folks are "green" and are doing what they can to save the planet. I too support treating old earth better than we have.

But I've often thought, what if Al Gore is right. More importantly, what if we did exactly what Al wants us to do and about 20 years from now the planet starts to cool significantly. Imagine cold waves that hit Europe and the United states were hundred or thousands of people die due to the cold. Imagine if the growing season is shortened due to the cooling and food supplies are drastically reduced. What if another little ice age could actually be attributed the carbon dioxide reduction caused by what the world population did between 2000 and 2020.

My friends, Al Gore might not be around to experience the ramifications but I'm sure some of the other alarmists will be. I can gurantee you that with the exception of handful of winter enthusiasts like me, the move to spew carbon into the atmosphere would be incredible. The greenest of the green people would be burning garbage in the back yard trying to reverse the effects of global cooling. No one, I repeat one, except me, wants a cold planet.

As one who lives in the upper midwest where weather forcasters ability to accurately predict weather 5 days from now is no better than a flip of a coin, you darn right I'm a skeptic.

3-5" of snow today and 15-20 below zero tomorrow night is just what I like. But if global cooling brings back the winters I experienced back in the 1960s, and its related to carbon reduction, God help the alarmists. Bounty hunters will again have work.

 

[two_bit_score]

Well, Sheik Al-gore was right afterall, and his efforts worked. Global warming has been solved! No more worrying about global warming anymore. Sheik Al-gore did a great job of saving the planet!

 

[Ken45101]

Why else would someone live in Minnesota? I thought it was so that one could have a real winter. After all, as soon as the snow melts, the vicious bugs come out!

The scenario you mentioned reminds me of a fiction book I read many years ago. The jet stream came down to low altitude and the northern portion of the country became uninhabitable. It snowed winter and summer. Army convoys were needed to evacuate everyone to the Gulf Coast. A few years later, dog sled teams explored Chicago....only the tops of the tallest sky scrapers were sticking out of the snow ;-)

Well, Sheik Al-gore was right afterall, and his efforts worked. Global warming has been solved! No more worrying about global warming anymore. Sheik Al-gore did a great job of saving the planet!

Obviously the Gore types know "global warming" is phony, that's why they have changed the name to "climate change". Of course, the climate is always changing! ("Those that fail to learn from history are destined to repeat it." LOL)

Ken

I'm one of the skeptics of the science as well. But I've always wondered though, What if Al Gore is right?

I'm a winter enthusiast. Crazy as it may seem, it's my favorite season. So the warmer winters we've experienced in Minnesota have concerned me but I also remember some warm snow-free winters in the 1960s that went along with the rough ones as well. So its hard to know with a planet billions and billions of year old exactly what is normal.

As one who actually enjoys winter, I am in the minority. Most of the people I work with hate living in Minnesota from November 1 to about April 15. But many of these same folks are "green" and are doing what they can to save the planet. I too support treating old earth better than we have.

But I've often thought, what if Al Gore is right. More importantly, what if we did exactly what Al wants us to do and about 20 years from now the planet starts to cool significantly. Imagine cold waves that hit Europe and the United states were hundred or thousands of people die due to the cold. Imagine if the growing season is shortened due to the cooling and food supplies are drastically reduced. What if another little ice age could actually be attributed the carbon dioxide reduction caused by what the world population did between 2000 and 2020.

My friends, Al Gore might not be around to experience the ramifications but I'm sure some of the other alarmists will be. I can gurantee you that with the exception of handful of winter enthusiasts like me, the move to spew carbon into the atmosphere would be incredible. The greenest of the green people would be burning garbage in the back yard trying to reverse the effects of global cooling. No one, I repeat one, except me, wants a cold planet.

As one who lives in the upper midwest where weather forcasters ability to accurately predict weather 5 days from now is no better than a flip of a coin, you darn right I'm a skeptic.

3-5" of snow today and 15-20 below zero tomorrow night is just what I like. But if global cooling brings back the winters I experienced back in the 1960s, and its related to carbon reduction, God help the alarmists. Bounty hunters will again have work.

 

[Ductape]

I'm one of the skeptics of the science as well. But I've always wondered though, What if Al Gore is right?

Hmmmmm...........................

Media Ignore Al Gore?s Financial Ties to Global Warming | NewsBusters.org

From the article:

Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he痴 buying carbon offsets, he痴 actually purchasing these investments from himself.
Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.

 

[EddieWalker]

One of the many questions that never get asked, or answered is what is the corrct temperature. Since the planet is constantly changing temperature, and there are cycles that change every ten, 100, 1,000 and even ten thousand years, what temperature in those cycles is the correct one? And why?

I realize that in the way the global warming crowd presents this, is that the planet is just going to keep warming until we're all dead and the planet becomes a big giant burning desert, but that's just plain silly. We've been in a cooling trend for the past decade and from what the charts show, and the history of the patterns, we're going to be cooling for a few more decades before we start to warm up again.

The real question should be how cold will it get, and how long will it last? The midevil warming period lasted for centuries. The little ice age was about 200 years long. We may never see the warm weather that we've seen in the past for the rest of our lives, and even our grand childeren will never see the same type of warm weather that we're used to.

Or it can change again in another decade or two. None of the so called experts have a clue. And neither does anybody else.

Eddie

 

[czechsonofagun]

You are lost Eddie, using logic in this case of religion?

 

[Ken45101]

Or it can change again in another decade or two. None of the so called experts have a clue. And neither does anybody else.

Eddie

You are lost Eddie, using logic in this case of religion?

Both messages are right on target

Ken
politics defined:
poly = many
tics = little blood suckers

 

[dmccarty]

Al has just gotten a 500 Million dollar loan for an electric car company he backs.

A loan from the US tax payers to build a $89,000 car.

In Finland.

The Green Elite zooms around the world in their private yachts and jets talking of the evils of excess fuel usage. But it is ok. They buy offsets to cover their carbon burning.

I think Martin Luther would call offsets, Indulgences.

Later,
Dan

 

[20 20]

Gee, I would really like to see those satellite pictures from 1600 that show the 1billion acres of forest.

Gee I'd really like to see the satellite pictures, of dino's, cave man, our ancestors before cameras, oh yeh and Jesus

 

[IH3444]

You guys are much too light hearted, time to get frightened again.....
Earth on the Brink of an Ice Age - Pravda.Ru
The article is more science, and how many other things affect the temperture other that CO2. Including the SUN!

And anyway, we all know that the real source of greenhouse gases are the tooting termites.....we need to afix some gas collection baggies to their tiny hineys and collect the gas. Then it can be burned to produce clean electricity.

 

[Pilot]

There are lots of problems with the global warming pseudoscience. Here are a few:

1. The IPCC has ignored the urban heat island effect. Cities absorb heat more than rural areas. Temps measured in cities typically run about 2 deg. C warmer than surrounding rural areas. Surveys of just rural stations show no warming. So the temps the IPCC shows are bogus.
2. A survey of about 1,000 of the 1221 weather stations in the USA showed that 89% were not properly located, with 11% having siting errors that could read as much as 5 deg. C high. Siting problems include locating weather stations on the south sides of buildings, near parking lots, near air conditioner vents and other sources of heat. And most of the problems with siting relate to infrastructure built since the 1950's or so, when the alarmists say the earth started warming.
3. An early IPCC report (in 2001, I think) showed the medieval warming period and the little ice age that ran from about 1300-1850 (some use 1500 as the starting point), but in the 2007 report they erased both episodes to make recent temps reflect an upward trend. Then the alarmists tell us that it is warmer now than at any time in history, but it was actually warmer in the 1930's, which they were forced to admit. Big time fraud.
4. The most important greenhouse gas is not CO2, but water vapor. They don't have a very good handle on water vapor effects, so in their models they just say rising CO2 will warm the planet and increase water vapor, making things worse faster. But an expert on clouds at MIT says they don't have a clue about water vapor and it could go the other way.
5. Past CO2 concentrations and temps are estimated by looking at ice cores and tree rings. But the process of extracting the ice cores releases CO2 into the atmosphere, giving lower readings for the past, making it look like we have more CO2 today than before. And tree rings only reflect growing season conditions--what about temps during the rest of the year? They don't have a clue.
6. In about 1960, tree ring data started to show cooling compared to actual temperature measurements. Hmmm...What to do, what to do? They can't both be right. So they threw out the tree ring data for the recent past and went with the measurements. If the tree ring data is wrong for the present, it is wrong for the past, but that's where they get their temps for the past. Bogus, bogus, bogus. That's what the "hide the decline" statement was all about in the Climategate emails.
7. Alarmists say the models are right because they all agree. But they are all pretty much suing the same research to build their models, so of course they all agree. And if you want funding to continue your research, you don't want to be out in left field--you won't get any money. And there are 3 databases they use for temps. But, surprise! Two databases are based on the third database, so they are essentially one database.
8. The 2007 IPCC report is 2558 pages, with 29 pages of references. Virtually no reporters or politicians have read it and understand all the research. Furthermore, the research was cherry picked, ignoring the studies that contradicted their message. Except for the few people who know something about climate science and can identify the valid stuff in the report, those who talk about the IPCC report are just blowing smoke.
9. If the earth is really warming we can cool it by releasing sulphur dioxide into the upper atmosphere at relatively low cost. It's powerful solar heat blocker and releases from Mt. Pinatubo in the eruption of 1991 cooled the planet about 1 deg. C. We could then regulate the planet temps at relatively low cost until better technology comes along to allow us to have our standard of living without warming the planet. No need to screw up the economy by sending trillions of $ to third world countries whose leaders will send the money to their bank accounts in Switzerland.

What we need is good science, not advocacy "science". Hopefully, Climategate will force an objective evaluation of the situation and we'll get real science. But with the press and politicians believing the alarmists, don't hold your breath. The press in the US is pretty much ignoring the issue. However, the BBC has been forced to evaluate their reporting and will strive to be more objective.

 

[IH3444]

Pilot,
There is a you tube video about a danish scientist, Henrik Svensmark, who has been investigating the effects of cosmic rays, and cloud formation (water vapor). I'm trying to find it. When and if I do I'll post it. Hopefully this thread won't be closed by then. He presented his finding back in 1998 when this global warming took hold, and began to gain traction in the United Nations. They just didn't want to hear any scientific data which may firmly show that we as humans have almost no effect on the worlds overall temperture. They completely shut him out from presenting his finding. I'm going back to look for it again now.

Your post is excellent.

Here's part of it, this is from another scientist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIcbU5O6GiE

Here it is, I found it. Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n1qGOUIRac0&feature=related

Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTqBrML4nsc&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yv06IyygoUs&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C5hPu9K684Y&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6pRmbBsdhNE&feature=related

Vid by John Coleman, Founder of the weather channel. Water vapor, topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z6l1Cp3MYCQ&feature=related

 

[Ken45101]

I used to work in the computer field. Computer models are only as good as the person who designed them. They are not precise, they only reflect that person's GUESSES. For some things, such as rain/ground saturation/river levels, they can be pretty good because we have data to verify them. But as we all know, the computer models for the weather aren't very accurate, even for a week away!

But long term human effects on the global climate are just someone's wild guess. Of course, those making doomsday guesses as to what will happen in 50 or 100 years will get the most attention, especially when certain politicians want to use it for nefarious purposes.