Global Warming?

[tcreeley]

WHAT no mention of the fact Sandy was a tropical storm that Collided with and Ice Age type storm from the west????

Seems to me that Sandy started out off the coast of Africa, lots of man made warming there.
2 to 4 Foot snow storm coming from the West, Must be Man Made Cooling???? RIGHT?????

I thought the snow was from our good friends up north in Canada! Ye telling me that the Wyoming and Colorado folks sent the snow! What ever it did- it gave us 60 degree days here in Maine- during the night as well, and some rain. Frogs and bugs are out. Really pleasant weather.
Winter in Maine for the really fine weather. LLBean will have to cancel its Katahdin 40 below line of Parkas for light gear summer jackets!

 

[madmax12]

Where does Agenda 21 fit into this discussion?

Agenda 21 For Dummies - YouTube

Agenda 21 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Pasted from Wikipedia section (verbatim):

Agenda 21 in the United States

The United States is a signatory country to Agenda 21, but because Agenda 21 is not a treaty, the Senate was unable to hold a formal debate or vote on it, nor was it ratified in any way by the executive branch. Several congressmen and senators, however, have spoken in Congress in support of Agenda 21; these include Representative Nancy Pelosi, Senator John Kerry, and Senator Harry Reid.[10] Locally across the United States, over 528 cities are members of ICLEI, an international sustainability organization that broadly helps implement the Agenda 21 and Local Agenda 21 concepts across the world. The United States boasts nearly half of the ICLEI's global membership of 1,200 cities promoting sustainable development at a local level.[6] As a first-world country, the United States features one of the most comprehensively documented Agenda 21 status reports.[11]
Opposition in the United States

During the last decade, opposition grew to some aspects of Agenda 21 within the United States at the local, state, and federal levels. The Republican National Committee have adopted a resolution opposing Agenda 21, while the Republican Party platform states that "We strongly reject the U.N. Agenda 21 as erosive of American sovereignty".[12][13] Several state and local governments have considered or passed motions and legislation opposing Agenda 21.[14][15][16][17][3][18] Alabama became the first state to prohibit government participation in Agenda 21, while Arizona failed to pass a similar bill.[4]

Activists, attributed to the Tea Party movement by The New York Times and The Huffington Post, have claimed that Agenda 21 is a conspiracy by the United Nations to deprive individuals of property rights.[3] Columnists in The Atlantic have linked Agenda 21 opposition to the property rights movement in the United States.[19][18] A poll by the American Planning Association of 1,300 US votes found that 9% percent supported Agenda 21, 6% opposed it, and 85% thought they didn't have enough information to form an opinion.[18]

 

[toppop52]

Mumbo jumbo, toppop52. Denial of climate change as a man made phenomenon is ridiculous. Whatever drives such cognitive dissonance will never elevate intelligent discussion on this matter. Your efforts as a denier are laudable, albeit, unflattering, especially in the face of so much evidence in contradiction to your agenda.

The notion, however, that climate change is historically and arguably natural could have some merit were it not isolated in the ambiguous past, i. e. pre-historic era of the Earth. But even that is a stretch as the historical record is compiled by the same people you routinely dismiss as agenda driven, scientists.

Our discussion of the matter of climate change, however, is welcome if, for no other reason, more evidence of its existence surfaces.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/31/us/sandy-climate-change/index.html?hpt=hp_t1

Your arrogant and condescending tone makes you seem an *****, is that your intent or just the natural occurrence when a narcissist opens his mouth?.
I wasn't aware that the Medieval Warming Period was in the "ambiguous past", whatever that means in this context. I never denied climate change, it's been going on since there was a climate. I don't know anyone that discounts climate change. If however, you believe there are no agenda driven scientists, you are the ostrich, not I. I understand your frustration caused by the greenie scientists inability to separate the most recent warming from every other in history, it's just so ****& inconvenient. So you resort to trying to convince people, even those with above average education and IQ's how retarded their mental capacity is. Pathetic coming from those who for some reason, known only to them, that they are somehow the bright ones! Amazing!

 

[toppop52]

The climate dramatically between 1950 and 1972-'79 depending on which data you decide to believe. That was a time of much dirtier air than now, how do you balance that?

 

[Loren49]

The climate dramatically between 1950 and 1972-'79 depending on which data you decide to believe. That was a time of much dirtier air than now, how do you balance that?

Could you clarify what you're trying to say with some reference to the data. Also do you mean CO2 levels as "dirty" air?

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
June 18, 2009
----------------------------
And CO2 levels have increased since 2009 (Sept 2010 --386.83 ppm, Sept 2011 -- 388.95, Sept 2012 -- 391.07 ppm)

Loren

 

[EE_Bota]

Could you clarify what you're trying to say with some reference to the data. Also do you mean CO2 levels as "dirty" air?

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
June 18, 2009
----------------------------
And CO2 levels have increased since 2009 (Sept 2010 --386.83 ppm, Sept 2011 -- 388.95, Sept 2012 -- 391.07 ppm)

Loren

I don't know if this has any bearing, but as best I can tell, most any molecule except diatomic molecules (such as O2 H2 N2) is considered a greenhouse gas. I'm confident that particulate matter does not count as a greenhouse gas since it is not really a gas at all, but tiny solids, and their action depends on their nature. Particulates don't tend to persist.

 

[toppop52]

Could you clarify what you're trying to say with some reference to the data. Also do you mean CO2 levels as "dirty" air?

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
CO2 Levels Highest in Two Million Years
Maggie Koerth-Baker
for National Geographic News
June 18, 2009
----------------------------
And CO2 levels have increased since 2009 (Sept 2010 --386.83 ppm, Sept 2011 -- 388.95, Sept 2012 -- 391.07 ppm)

Loren

The missing word (thanks iPad), is "cooled". The earth cooled considerably between 1950-1972 or maybe a few years later. And wouldn't claiming we know what C02 levels were 2 million years ago be guessing about that "ambiguous past" that Dustier seemed to dismiss, or does that only apply when the evidence doesn't support your agenda(s)?

This is what your Chicken Little buddies were saying in 1974....

However widely the weather varies from place to place and time to time, when meteorologists take an average of temperatures around the globe they find that the atmosphere has been growing gradually cooler for the past three decades. The trend shows no indication of reversing. Climatological Cassandras are becoming increasingly apprehensive, for the weather aberrations they are studying may be the harbinger of another ice age.

 

[houstonscott]

CO2 has been proven not to be a warming gas, atmospheric gases may not even be the science that explains or is the cause of global climate change. So much for the man made part. I wish people would stop with the CO2 stuff, it's not a factor at all....Orbital science, plate tectonics that effect ocean currents always moving always changing and sun output, explain long term global climate change much more closely than the fuddy duddy squishy science of atmospheric gases. There is really nothing there than an agenda, it's simply a big hoax.

HS

The missing word (thanks iPad), is "cooled". The earth cooled considerably between 1950-1972 or maybe a few years later. And wouldn't claiming we know what C02 levels were 2 million years ago be guessing about that "ambiguous past" that Dustier seemed to dismiss, or does that only apply when the evidence doesn't support your agenda(s)?

This is what your Chicken Little buddies were saying in 1974....

 

[IslandTractor]

CO2 has been proven not to be a warming gas, atmospheric gases may not even be the science that explains or is the cause of global climate change. So much for the man made part. I wish people would stop with the CO2 stuff, it's not a factor at all....Orbital science, plate tectonics that effect ocean currents always moving always changing and sun output, explain long term global climate change much more closely than the fuddy duddy squishy science of atmospheric gases. There is really nothing there than an agenda, it's simply a big hoax.

HS

Please provide references for your belief that CO2 is "not a factor at all". That seems to disagree with just about every climate scientist today. There is debate regarding a variety of factors and models for predicting future temperature rise but not much debate that CO2 has an important role. You are the outlier here so please provide some references to support your dismissal of greenhouse gases.

 

[IslandTractor]

The missing word (thanks iPad), is "cooled". The earth cooled considerably between 1950-1972 or maybe a few years later. And wouldn't claiming we know what C02 levels were 2 million years ago be guessing about that "ambiguous past" that Dustier seemed to dismiss, or does that only apply when the evidence doesn't support your agenda(s)?

This is what your Chicken Little buddies were saying in 1974....

In 1491, many scientists thought the earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong. Does the fact that some of them were wrong in the past invalidate the science that has followed?

Science is full of theories and explanations that turn out to be wrong or only partially correct. It is an iterative process and new data or knowledge changes our understanding. I doubt that many of the climate scientists who were concerned about cooling have failed to review additional data and understand they were wrong. I also don't think that idea was terribly well accepted by the larger climate science community as there were no great international conventions to seek practical solutions to the problem. Most likely a "flash in the pan" theory that was soon discarded. In contrast, we have now seen decades of scientific work which points to AGW and the vast majority of climate scientists agree the evidence is now overwhelming. Skepticism is a valid part of science but demands a logical and data driven argument. Pointing out that a few scientists over hyped an incorrect theory forty years ago is not valid skepticism. It is cherry picking of data which is a common tactic of deniers and such distortion doesn't stand up at all to the mass of data and understanding that has been gained since that time.

 

[toppop52]

In 1491, many scientists thought the earth was flat. Turns out they were wrong. Does the fact that some of them were wrong in the past invalidate the science that has followed?

Science is full of theories and explanations that turn out to be wrong or only partially correct. It is an iterative process and new data or knowledge changes our understanding. I doubt that many of the climate scientists who were concerned about cooling have failed to review additional data and understand they were wrong. I also don't think that idea was terribly well accepted by the larger climate science community as there were no great international conventions to seek practical solutions to the problem. Most likely a "flash in the pan" theory that was soon discarded. In contrast, we have now seen decades of scientific work which points to AGW and the vast majority of climate scientists agree the evidence is now overwhelming. Skepticism is a valid part of science but demands a logical and data driven argument. Pointing out that a few scientists over hyped an incorrect theory forty years ago is not valid skepticism. It is cherry picking of data which is a common tactic of deniers and such distortion doesn't stand up at all to the mass of data and understanding that has been gained since that time.

That doesn't change the fact the earth was cooling then, much as it's warming now, but the hydrocarbons and upper atmosphere content of gasses such as R-12 were much higher then. Whether their theory was right or wrong based in the same info today's theorists use is a perfectly valid argument. The fact they were wrong using the same basic data but with dirtier air means something, could it be the more polluted air actually caused cooling? Once we started the clean up it warmed up? You all argue based too much on a tunnel vision toward what you want it to be vs what it may encompass, thereby leaving out so much valuable information that may show us a lot more than grandma's coal stove is to blame.

 

[tcreeley]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...
Now they would have us see
From the tip of our nose to the
shadowy and fluttering lash. ..Oh such
discernment, such embrace of so much, it is a beauty of vision, this lightweight flake of
truth on the cheek,
How can we adherents but depart from out heated words, to join up to the deniers - to extol their
merciless derision
and their treatment of the need for a DairyQueen treat!

 

[madmax12]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...
Now they would have us see
From the tip of our nose to the
shadowy and fluttering lash. ..Oh such
discernment, such embrace of so much, it is a beauty of vision, this lightweight flake of
truth on the cheek,
How can we adherents but depart from out heated words, to join up to the deniers - to extol their
merciless derision
and their treatment of the need for a DairyQueen treat!

?:laughing:? ...so, your buying ice cream... right?

Cool.

 

[/pine]

Bombastic deniers, a coven of holy grailers...

And just how would you describe the highly gullible (AGW) advocates that put all their faith in the "...ignorance of experts" ? huh?

 

[IslandTractor]

And just how would you describe the highly gullible (AGW) advocates that put all their faith in the "...the ignorance of experts" ? huh?

Slash, it is laughable that you continue to think Feynman's quote was anti science. You must have gotten an A in miscomprehension in high school.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. " Is not an anti-science stance. You on the other hand are clearly more interested in politics than science and would happily ignore science that doesn't fit your world view.

 

[/pine]

Slash, it is laughable that you continue to think Feynman's quote was anti science. You must have gotten an A in miscomprehension in high school.

"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts. " Is not an anti-science stance. You on the other hand are clearly more interested in politics than science and would happily ignore science that doesn't fit your world view.

you are obviously clueless on the subject (cited)...and obviously can't discern the difference between science and the opinions of scientists...

And you are clearly more interested in attempting to pontificate your own opinions with blather and drivel....

 

[/pine]

@ robert Brown....???

why did you delete your post?

did you figure it out and embarrassment get to you?:laughing:

 

[RobertBrown]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

why did you delete your post?

did you figure it out and embarrassment get to you?:laughing:

OOPS! WRONG AGAIN!

 

[/pine]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

OOPS! WRONG AGAIN!

So why did you delete it then ?

why answer a viable question with an admonishment ?

 

[RobertBrown]

Re: @ robert Brown....???

So why did you delete it then ?

I'm using a mobile device, the editing is very tempermental and I'm short on time.

why answer a viable question with an admonishment ?

Because it amuses me.....