Global Warming?

[tallyho8]

So, can't we just go back to talking about tractors and the weather?

I thought we WERE talking about the weather!

 

[ridgerunnerinwv]

I thought we WERE talking about the weather!

Wow what a thread.....I like it !!
Heck, the other day I posted something about on the thread about advantages and disadvantage of 4wd and it was deleted faster than you can say " global warming" . And it was not even derogatory or pointed...

 

[AchingBack]

Here is a link to scientific information debunking global warming, and greenhouse gases. Global Warming Lecture - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Global Warming Lecture - Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine

 

[orangebluegreen]

What happened to all the terrible powerful hurricanes that were all predicted to make landfall and wreck havoc in the USA this year on the dire account and warning from all the global warming folks?

Media advertising and insurance are big money makers. The media loves doom and gloom predictions backed up by a “doctor” for “credibility” (or pass the buck). You living in Fl probably know the “Dr.” I’m referencing. His predictions have been absolutely wrong for years but when it’s obvious his predictions won’t come true he is allowed to adjust his numbers up or down and everyone (those who make money through viewership and ad sales and insurance premiums) praise his accuracy and quote him. I get so angry when I hear weather forecasters quote predicted storm numbers for the upcoming season based on “The Dr.” Amazing for how accurate they like to claim he is they totally missed this years El Nino and wind shear that blew the hurricanes away from Fl.


I fearlessly predict 2006 will have no Florida landfalling hurricanes. Whew, I’m 100% accurate, soon I’ll be quoted on every weather channel!

 

[MikePA]

Heck, the other day I posted something about on the thread about advantages and disadvantage of 4wd and it was deleted faster than you can say " global warming" . And it was not even derogatory or pointed...

Which one of your posts in the 4wd thread are you claiming was deleted, this one?

 

[_RaT_]

Which one of your posts in the 4wd thread are you claiming was deleted, this one?

Good one Mike. I have on occasion posted and thought the thread deleted only to find it elsewhere in TBN. I suspect this was the case with ridgerunner

 

[LMTC]

As for the question "How does a scientist know anything?"

That was NOT my question. My question [How does any scientist know what the blazes things were like thousands of years ago?] was far more specific, and my question neither stated nor implied that scientists can not know "anything". One can demonstrate various principles of aerodynamics in today's world...they are not postulates based on theory and a presumed atmospheric composition based on an ice sample. There is a vast difference between that which can be demonstrated by experiment today and that which is postulated on evidence about which many assumptions are made. It is simply not possible to "know" in the empirical sense what the impact of 650,000 years would be on an ice core sample....the result is a postulate based on the current data and theory. This is the point I was intending to make....I am not in denial of those things that can be clearly demonstrated.

 

[_RaT_]

That was NOT my question. My question [How does any scientist know what the blazes things were like thousands of years ago?] was far more specific, and my question neither stated nor implied that scientists can not know "anything". One can demonstrate various principles of aerodynamics in today's world...they are not postulates based on theory and a presumed atmospheric composition based on an ice sample. There is a vast difference between that which can be demonstrated by experiment today and that which is postulated on evidence about which many assumptions are made. It is simply not possible to "know" in the empirical sense what the impact of 650,000 years would be on an ice core sample....the result is a postulate based on the current data and theory. This is the point I was intending to make....I am not in denial of those things that can be clearly demonstrated.

You guys both make very good points. I've enjoyed reading yours and CRJCaptain.

 

[ridgerunnerinwv]

Which one of your posts in the 4wd thread are you claiming was deleted, this one?

Nope not that one,another one same thread.

 

[ridgerunnerinwv]

Good one Mike. I have on occasion posted and thought the thread deleted only to find it elsewhere in TBN. I suspect this was the case with ridgerunner

Good one? I don't thinks so. I might have thought it was entered and it did not save it,in retropspect it was a mute point anyway.

 

[MikePA]

It's not a moot point. The only people on this site that can delete a post are;

1. The poster themselves (within a certain number of hours).
2. Moderators.

Your previous post falsely accused a modertor of deleting one of your posts;

"...the other day I posted something about on the thread about advantages and disadvantage of 4wd and it was deleted faster than you can say " global warming" . And it was not even derogatory or pointed...

For the record, none of your posts in that thread were deleted, either slower or 'faster than you can say " global warming"'.

 

[ridgerunnerinwv]

It's not a moot point. The only people on this site that can delete a post are;

1. The poster themselves (within a certain number of hours).
2. Moderators.

Your previous post falsely accused a modertor of deleting one of your posts;



For the record, none of your posts in that thread were deleted, either slower or 'faster than you can say " global warming"'.

Whatever you say Mike

For the record
I am sooo very sorry

Moooot

 

[_RaT_]

It's not a moot point. The only people on this site that can delete a post are;

1. The poster themselves (within a certain number of hours).
2. Moderators.

Your previous post falsely accused a modertor of deleting one of your posts;



For the record, none of your posts in that thread were deleted, either slower or 'faster than you can say " global warming"'.

Mike, if I post and later the enitire thread is locked or deleted, do "show all users posts" still show up? I would assume they would if the thread was locked, I don't recall checking when a post was deleted. If they are not deleted, then ridgerunner either posted the 4WD a long time ago or the one that shows up in 4WD advantages/disadvantages is still there and still avialable for posting. Just curious...

 

[MikePA]

Mike, if I post and later the enitire thread is locked or deleted, do "show all users posts" still show up? I would assume they would if the thread was locked, I don't recall checking when a post was deleted. If they are not deleted, then ridgerunner either posted the 4WD a long time ago or the one that shows up in 4WD advantages/disadvantages is still there and still avialable for posting. Just curious...

Posts in locked threads still show up in a Search, deleted ones do not.

 

[ridgerunnerinwv]

Posts in locked threads still show up in a Search, deleted ones do not.

ThanksMike

 

[cp1969]

From post #60, CRJCaptain

Do you drive a car or ride in an airplane? Do you believe man went to the moon? Do you own an air conditioner? See a physician on a regular basis? Are you on the Internet right now?! Well you must have some faith in the veracity of the fields of aerodynamics, classical Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and the list goes on...

Back to global warming...who of us knows the effects of releasing several million years worth of stored up carbon into the atmosphere in the span of a hundred years? Well, I've read a lot of posts on the subject of global warming here, and I suspect none of you have ever been published in any peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science or the International Journal of Modern Physics.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it would seem you have bought into the Man Caused Global Warming theory and think action should be taken to minimize or arrest the damage being caused.

Is that right? If so, I would like to ask a question.

When will you be looking for a different line of work (I assume you are a pilot), i.e., one that is a little more environmentally friendly? It would seem one's convictions would dictate that.

 

[dmccarty]

Nuclear winter? I don't think that's currently a problem since mankind figured out that it wasn't a great idea to detonate large quantities of thermonuclear devices above ground...North Korea not withstanding.

I don't think all of mankind has figured this out yet. But that is another thread.

Nuclear winter is very relevant to the Global Warming discussions. I remember the models for Global Warming and Nuke Winters being linked. Remember the "scientists" said that the oil well fires in Kuwait would take decades to extingish. They took months. The huge oil slick that ****** poured into the Gulf was supposed to destroy the body of water. It did not. The oil files where going to spread poison around the world. It did not. The smoke from the fires was going to cause Global Cooling which did not happen.

I remember one of the first news reports about computer models and Global Warming. The report was all about the Gloom and Doom. Deserts enlarging, temps going up, breadbaskets turning into dust bowls, etc. Then at the end they had one little sentence or two where the "scientist" admited that if they put in todays data they could not get todays climate out of the model. Hmmm, if todays data will not show todays known climate then how in the heck can the model predict the future climate?

We just had some more "research" about Hurricane intensification because of Global Warming based on Satellite data. Simple logic could punch holes it that "study." But it made the media.

Do you drive a car or ride in an airplane? Do you believe man went to the moon? Do you own an air conditioner? See a physician on a regular basis? Are you on the Internet right now?! Well you must have some faith in the veracity of the fields of aerodynamics, classical Newtonian mechanics, thermodynamics, quantum mechanics and the list goes on...

What does that have to do with the idea of Human Caused Global Warming? Are you saying because Newton got hit in the head with an apple therefore Humans are causing Global Warming?

Back to global warming...who of us knows the effects of releasing several million years worth of stored up carbon into the atmosphere in the span of a hundred years? Well, I've read a lot of posts on the subject of global warming here, and I suspect none of you have ever been published in any peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science or the International Journal of Modern Physics.

I think the last people that I would believe to be qualified to talk about atmospheric science and climatology would be James Inhofe or Michael Crichton or Al Gore or Al Franken or, sorry, anybody on TBN.

None of us do. Including the scientists. I am much more interested in the opinion of a TBNer than a scientist in an Ivory Tower fighting for grant money so they can publish to prevent the perish. Peer review is not perfect. Read up on the problems in med journals regarding drug trials. Or false and fabricated results. Publish or Perish is real. TBNers have opinions usually pretty good and educated ones not biased by the need to sell or get grant money.

Later,
Dan

 

[Bob_Young]

Back to Global Warming for a second:

I'm kinda new to this planet, only been here for 61 yrs., so I got a question I've been wanting to ask.
What about the forest fires? Seems like public land has a lot of them and they are big and don't go away quickly. Seems like they'd throw a lot more greenhouse gases into the air than all the SUVs with catalytic converters and coal fired power plants with stack scrubbers combined. How come no one is jumping on the govt. for their irresponsible stewardship of publicly owned forest land?

Now forests are full of wood, branches, leaves, & pine needles, all of which burn. But isn't it true that the timber and paper companies whose income depends NOT letting their trees go up in smoke, actually do a pretty good job of limiting losses to fire? Don't they have ways of keeping the forest floor cleaned up and culling out trees before they die (while they still have some timber value). Ways of avoiding the forest floor tinder buildup that puts the whole forest in danger?

If my simplistic take on timber company activities is correct, why are the companies not managing the forests on public land? Seems win-win-win-win to me; more and cheaper lumber, work for timberjacks, more profitable timber companies, fewer forest fires, less CO2, less global warming (assuming it's real).

Does the smoke and CO2 rising from a forest fire not contribute to global warming? Wouldn't the live trees consumed in these conflagrations be otherwise converting CO2 to O2 had they not burned? Shouldn't there be numbers available to quantify the net CO2 contribution of burning an acre of forest as well as the net loss in O2 conversion capability? ....or is this stuff secret?

Is the spotted owl the cause of this problem?
Bob

 

[AchingBack]

Back to Global Warming for a second:

I'm kinda new to this planet, only been here for 61 yrs., so I got a question I've been wanting to ask.
What about the forest fires? Seems like public land has a lot of them and they are big and don't go away quickly. Seems like they'd throw a lot more greenhouse gases into the air than all the SUVs with catalytic converters and coal fired power plants with stack scrubbers combined. How come no one is jumping on the govt. for their irresponsible stewardship of publicly owned forest land?

Now forests are full of wood, branches, leaves, & pine needles, all of which burn. But isn't it true that the timber and paper companies whose income depends NOT letting their trees go up in smoke, actually do a pretty good job of limiting losses to fire? Don't they have ways of keeping the forest floor cleaned up and culling out trees before they die (while they still have some timber value). Ways of avoiding the forest floor tinder buildup that puts the whole forest in danger?

If my simplistic take on timber company activities is correct, why are the companies not managing the forests on public land? Seems win-win-win-win to me; more and cheaper lumber, work for timberjacks, more profitable timber companies, fewer forest fires, less CO2, less global warming (assuming it's real).

Does the smoke and CO2 rising from a forest fire not contribute to global warming? Wouldn't the live trees consumed in these conflagrations be otherwise converting CO2 to O2 had they not burned? Shouldn't there be numbers available to quantify the net CO2 contribution of burning an acre of forest as well as the net loss in O2 conversion capability? ....or is this stuff secret?

Is the spotted owl the cause of this problem?
Bob

Bob, I really like your style. Romans 8:28 is my favorite verse from Paul's writings. Hey, talk about global warming; just wait 'til the lake of fire debuts.

 

[CurlyDave]

I suspect none of you have ever been published in any peer-reviewed journals like Nature or Science or the International Journal of Modern Physics.

You suspect wrongly. You will find some surprising people here on TBN.

I have published in peer-reviewed journals, and I have 20 US Patents.

I design and build spacecraft for a living, including solar observation spacecraft.

And, I know better than to denigrate the accomlishments of others on this forum. I learn a lot of very practical things here.