Global Warming News

[SpringHollow]

They define drought in Australia as being in the lowest 10% of historical recorded rainfall. They have had severe drought recently followed by dry years. I am not saying it is global warming. Australia has always gone through these cycles more than most areas.

Ken

 

[Loren49]

Here are some interesting graphs. Is it probable that there is no consequence to the increase in CO2 levels or that burning of fossil fuels has nothing to do with it?

what's up with the weather: graphs tell the story

We can be very confident with our opinion but it doesn't change whether we are (or aren't) contributing to climate change. Is there any reason to be more conservative with our use of fossil fuels and how aggressive should we be in finding alternatives. Or maybe we should just work on conspiracy theory and try to put Al Gore down. Maybe we'd feel better about him if he would have sat back and made millions on oil investments and criticized the former administration for the past eight years.

Loren

 

[Ken45101]

Here are some interesting graphs. Is it probable that there is no consequence to the increase in CO2 levels or that burning of fossil fuels has nothing to do with it?

what's up with the weather: graphs tell the story

We can be very confident with our opinion but it doesn't change whether we are (or aren't) contributing to climate change. Is there any reason to be more conservative with our use of fossil fuels and how aggressive should we be in finding alternatives. Or maybe we should just work on conspiracy theory and try to put Al Gore down. Maybe we'd feel better about him if he would have sat back and made millions on oil investments and criticized the former administration for the past eight years.

Loren

Yes, the graphs are interesting. First of all, I notice that the medieval warming period is missing That certainly makes we wonder at the accuracy of the charts, but I'm sure they passed the test for "political correctness". Coming from PBS, I'm not the least surprised that the charts support the liberal viewpoint instead of accurate data.

I've also seen charts that show that the CO2 levels lag behind temperatures. Makes a lot of sense, the warmer it is, the more the oceans give up their dissolved CO2. So CO2 is a lagging indicator, by several decades.

Isn't it also so very telling that the graphs stop at the year 2000...and fail to show the decline since then

The charts look to me like fitting the data to a desired outcome and censoring everything that they don't want to admit.

Ken

 

[Loren49]

Ken - thanks for looking and responding.

I wasn't trying to avoid the 2000 present temps - looks like continued up until a few years ago. What draws my attention is the continued rise in CO2 levels which corresponds with man's burning of fossil fuels. Those levels are continuing to rise. Is there a chance that our burning of fossil fuels and the resulting release of thousands of tons of carbon (and various other gases) into the atmosphere have not contributed to that. Also how likely is it that a significant increase in CO2 has no significant effect on temperature.

File:Instrumental Temperature Record.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This graph mentions warming period - graph scale changes look
File:2000 Year Temperature Comparison.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trends in Carbon Dioxide

My dog decided she needs my attention so I'll quit babbling on.

Loren

 

[charlz]

Isn't it also so very telling that the graphs stop at the year 2000...and fail to show the decline since then

The page says 'Copyright 2000' so I would assume the charts are now 10 years old. Which brings us to the next problem, there have been some 'corrections' to NASA data etc. A graph without the accompanying dataset is just eye candy, no way for you to verify which dataset was used.

Another way to manipulate graphs: using .5C for the X axis sure makes the 'hockey stick' look huge. Probably why the Medieval Warm period was glossed over, they would have had to increase the X scale. Not only showing you it has been warmer before but then the current increase would also look smaller.

 

[EddieWalker]

Loren,

Like Ken mentioned, that graph ignores the Midevil Warming Period. A time when the glaciers actually did melt and Greenland was farmed. A period that lasted hundreds of years and was warmer then it is today. We still have ice all over Greenland, so I think it's reasonable to think that it's not as hot today as it was back then.

When a source is intentionally misleading and outright fabricating the evidence to support a political agenda, it is not credible. PBS has not been credible for a very long time.

The graph that is used on the PBS site is from Michael Mann and is called the hockey stick because of it's resemblense to a hockey stick. It is pure BS and whenever you see it used to support global warming, you have to question why? Why use something that has so publicly been ridiculed for it's junk science? I don't get it, but at least the truth is coming out and those responsible for hoax are now having to explain themselves.

Climategate: sack 'no longer credible' Michael Mann from IPCC urges climatologist – Telegraph Blogs

Eddie

 

[dmccarty]

The problem with Al is that he is selling story that uses scares tactics and lies. His story is being used by governments around the world and the UN to raises taxes that will somehow be used to save the world. While Al tell us little people on how to act and behave he still has his private jets, 100 foot long yachts, and mansions all over the place. Any one of which has a much bigger carbon foot print than my family.

But it is ok, he has bought carbon offsets, aka, Indulgences to make it right.

Furthermore he is making money off of his gloom and doom with our tax money to build electric cars. And he has a 5 billion dollar green investment fund. Would the fund make more money if Al was not saying the sky was falling? Or would it make less money?

Al and his family have made money off of oil. Al's father was also a Senator which is how Al jr got into politics. Armand Hammer of Occidental Petroleum built a facility near one of the Gore's estates and Al jr pocketed income from the operation for years.

Making money from oil is not a sin. Though there certainly was a stink of sin from the deal that Hammer made with Al Sr to give money to Al Jr.

Al would be more believable if he would do as he says instead of doing what he says we should not do.

Later,
Dan

 

[IH3444]

"Great Scott" Eddie! The comments after are just as good a read as the article.

 

[Loren49]

Hi,

I'm sure we won't agree on the cause-effect relationship concerning climate change. I'm not sure what I'd predict if I had to bet the farm on it!
Is there a debate over the increase in CO2 ppm in our atmosphere (along with nitrous oxide) which corresponds with our use of fossil fuels? If we are contributing to this what is the level of CO2 that would be a problem? If a persons belief is that it has no effect it is obvious that they would resist any modification of behavior that would be perceived to threaten their standard of living. Again, I feel that a more conservative use of fossil fuels will benefit this country whether climate is being changed or not. (I do feel that the science shows that at some point these CO2 increases will be a problem but I not trying to convince anyone of that).

The good news - since my last post I changed the oil and filter on my Kioti (100hrs) and greased it. I know - I used fossil fuels. (approaching 40 degrees today in NNY) Sure enjoy the tractor.

Loren

 

[Ken45101]

Hi,

If we are contributing to this what is the level of CO2 that would be a problem? If a persons belief is that it has no effect ...

I certainly do not feel that there is adequate, legitimate proof of same. Nor is there any proof that higher CO2 levels will be a problem. After all, the earth flourished very well millions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher.

Again, I feel that a more conservative use of fossil fuels will benefit this country whether climate is being changed or not.

I will agree with you there. For one thing, if we became independent of foreign hydrocarbons, we might have a more peaceful world (might).

KIen

 

[texbaylea]

Do not lose sight of one axiom "correlation does not mean causation".

Just because "A" goes up while "B" goes up does not mean that A causes B. It could be the reverse or that neither influences the other.

Vernon

 

[dmccarty]

I will agree with you there. For one thing, if we became independent of foreign hydrocarbons, we might have a more peaceful world (might).

Oil has nothing to do with world peace or lack there of. Super Egos and Super Greed, pretty much the same thing I suppose, cause the lack of peace. Always have and always will until the Super Ego gene is gone.

Napoleon did a good job warring around Europe and oil was not the reason. His Super Ego certainly was a cause. History is full of the big names, Caesar, G. Khan, Alex The Great. But the same Super Ego/Greed gene is present in the people causing problems in the world today. I am afraid it is the human condition.

Later,
Dan

 

[SpringHollow]

After all, the earth flourished very well millions of years ago when CO2 levels were higher.

I have no doubt the earth will flourish. Increased CO2 levels have some benefits. The scientists that mention this are often quoted by people opposing doing anything to reduce CO2 emissions. But what is good for plants etc may not be good for people everywhere. Increased temperatures are good if you are in a place that can benefit from them, bad if you are near a desert. Climate change, regardless of the cause, will change the environment which will benefit some and harm others. This results in social and political pressures which can lead to turmoil.

As i said in this thread almost 200 posts ago, there are many non-climate reasons to conserve energy etc so we should just do it.

Ken

 

[Pilot]

The graphs also missed the "little ice age" which ran roughly from 1300 to 1850. Note the number of graphs you see that conveniently start in 1850, when things started to warm up. Strange, it always warms up when an ice age ends.

During the little ice age, there were massive crop failures all over Europe and North America; it snowed in the northeast in August. Famine occurred repeatedly and was widespread. Maybe warming is better than cooling?

Climate change happens.

Re: CO2 concentrations: Their models have a problem. They predict a lot more CO2 than they actually measure. Part of the problem is that in their models they assume CO2 produced today will last 100-300 years in the atmosphere. But many studies show more like 25 years--there is some variation in research results. So if there is a connection between temps and CO2, their models will predict much higher temps than will actually occur.

Don't trust models until they have been proven to be correct. None of the climate models have been proven; most agree with each other (you don't get funding to build a model that is very different from consensus, they use the same database-there are 3 databases, 2 of which are based on the 3rd, so there is really only one--and they rely pretty much on the same studies--it's that funding thing again). Because the models agree, alarmists say they are right, but Marx, Stalin and Lenin agreed, but that didn't make them right.

 

[Chuck52]

Oil has nothing to do with world peace or lack there of. Super Egos and Super Greed, pretty much the same thing I suppose, cause the lack of peace. Always have and always will until the Super Ego gene is gone.

Napoleon did a good job warring around Europe and oil was not the reason. His Super Ego certainly was a cause. History is full of the big names, Caesar, G. Khan, Alex The Great. But the same Super Ego/Greed gene is present in the people causing problems in the world today. I am afraid it is the human condition.

Later,
Dan

I certainly agree that human nature causes wars, but if a commodity is sufficiently important it will obviously affect human interactions. Access to oil was one of the principal driving forces for Japan to declare war on the US. ****** wasn't looking for sandy beaches when he sent his guys to North Africa. ****** wanted Kuwait's oil fields. Our interest in the middle east is, of course, entirely based on our humanitarian impulses.

Chuck

 

[IH3444]

While reading through those Ice Age Now articles, one scientist was telling about ice samples cored out of a glacier at a depth which represented part of the last ice age. I would have thought all that ice would have long since traveled to the sea, or ocean. Anyway, must have been really deep one. He explained how the core when brought out imediately begins to lose it's CO2 which is trapped in the ice core. He then went on to say that during the last ice age CO2 levels were much higher than now. As much as 7 times higher. He didn't have an answer for that. I'm not cherry picking data, just telling of one finding. They are interesting articles to read. All of them. Thanks to all who posted the links.

 

[SpringHollow]

Another graph proving global warming:

Ken

 

[EddieWalker]

Ken,

There you go, something good to come from global warming!!!

Eddie

 

[Stimw]

While they are collecting "man made data" how are they handling volcanic eruptions? Or the effect that ****** Hussein's oil fires in Kuwait had on everything? When Mt. St. Helens blew it put debris 100K feet into the atmosphere that circled the globe. And other volcanic eruptions since. Smoke from Hussein's fires were also said to circle the globe.
I refer back to the Blind Men and the Elephant.
As for Al Gore the environmentalist- Al Gore's Inconvenient Toxic Waste Dump Who needs big oil when you have toxic waste to profit from and the press to ignore it?

 

[EddieWalker]

Intersting story about the waste dump. It's the fist time I've heard about it. Are there any video's of it on youtube?

I knew that he had a strip mine operation on some land he owns in TN, and the family fortune came from big oil, but a waste dump is almost too much to believe.

Eddie