Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
Lane's picture
Lane
Offline
Joined: 4/20/02

  I have some pictures of the "highway to the sun" in northwest Montana dated June 4 2011,could barely see the visitors center for snow and some drifts were estimated at 25 ft deep,this was at Glacier National parkI have traveled that road so know the area.,If I knew how to put them on here I would.,Global warming?

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman,
You obviously haven't read the papers concerning the very study you listed concerning past time sequences of high co2  in relation to what]'s happening right now..  I have a client and I'll post a portion of it later.  This blurb you speak of has been discussed for years and never mentions what was going on with the ocean biodiveristy, lower intensity sun etc at that time period.  The basic things I listed are not rhetoric but accepted fact by over 95% of the world scientific community. 

svnmag's picture
svnmag
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/3/02

Oh great he has a Global Warming client.  Watch out boys he's probably trolling for a lawsuit of some sort.  He's tired of arguing with a chair in his house so he aggravates us.  And he's going to say mentally or otherwise that he is indeed arguing with chairs on this site.

 Nuke the Whales

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

You mean those scientist who are seeking funding for more studies on AGW!

Where there is money there is fraud,corruption and subtrifuge to advance the research funding stream. The summary I posted is one of many that questions the volume aspect of CO2 as a driver. There are hosts of others as well that have been peer reviewed,published etc....

So as far as understanding this, I understand clearly that the science is incomplete to a level as to cause and affect to not be credible or defendible in a court of law one way or the other.

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Ah Fishmahn,
Go to www.petitionproject.org to see the alternate view from the scientific community. The letter sent to Congress and the White House by Dr. Frederic Seitz, President of Rockefeller University and past President of the National Academy of Science, takes a different view of the discussion of Anthropomorphic Global Warming. The letter and petition has been signed by over 31,000 scientists in the U.S. alone. The list of scientists and scholars includes over 9,000 Phd's and represents institutions such as MIT, Yale, Harvard, Berkely, Cal Poly, Oxford, and more. Just because someone says 95% of the scientific community believe in man-made global warming, doesn't make it true.
 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Been there and have seen the petition. As far as consensus globally there are still 97% that believe differently.the scientific field of climate studies

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

the scientific field of climate studies

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Trying to paste an article doesn't seem to transfer.

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Hardwaterman Said:
You mean those scientist who are seeking funding for more studies on AGW!

Where there is money there is fraud,corruption and subtrifuge to advance the research funding stream. The summary I posted is one of many that questions the volume aspect of CO2 as a driver. There are hosts of others as well that have been peer reviewed,published etc....

So as far as understanding this, I understand clearly that the science is incomplete to a level as to cause and affect to not be credible or defendible in a court of law one way or the other.

I'm sure it's the same list of scientists that all jumped in bed with the global warming crowd.  then later became the climate change crowd.  then later became the clean the egg off your face crowd.  given all the info that has surfaced surrounding this crowd the past two years they now have zero credibility.

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Hardwaterman Said:
You mean those scientist who are seeking funding for more studies on AGW!

Where there is money there is fraud,corruption and subtrifuge to advance the research funding stream. The summary I posted is one of many that questions the volume aspect of CO2 as a driver. There are hosts of others as well that have been peer reviewed,published etc....

So as far as understanding this, I understand clearly that the science is incomplete to a level as to cause and affect to not be credible or defendible in a court of law one way or the other.

I'm sure it's the same list of scientists that all jumped in bed with the global warming crowd.  then later became the climate change crowd.  then later became the clean the egg off your face crowd.  given all the info that has surfaced surrounding this crowd the past two years they now have zero credibility.

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

Hardwaterman Said:
You mean those scientist who are seeking funding for more studies on AGW!

Where there is money there is fraud,corruption and subtrifuge to advance the research funding stream. The summary I posted is one of many that questions the volume aspect of CO2 as a driver. There are hosts of others as well that have been peer reviewed,published etc....

So as far as understanding this, I understand clearly that the science is incomplete to a level as to cause and affect to not be credible or defendible in a court of law one way or the other.

I'm sure it's the same list of scientists that all jumped in bed with the global warming crowd.  then later became the climate change crowd.  then later became the clean the egg off your face crowd.  given all the info that has surfaced surrounding this crowd the past two years they now have zero credibility.

fishmahn Said:
Been there and have seen the petition. As far as consensus globally there are still 97% that believe differently.the scientific field of climate studies

Since it's such a well known thing I'm sure the list of these 97% of all scientist is readily available.  I'm just dyeing to see it.

 

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

For the record unless you people haven't seen, Even Exxon Mobile has made a statement admitting mans part in the current global warming situation.
Co2 is just one part of the puzzle. If you go back also to the Ordivician I'm aware of high co2 levels. Glaciation was occurring at this time. There were also other variables such as very low ocean temperatures which created a huge absorption for co2 comsumption. Also the taconic orogeny which also created a great comsumption of co2. The sun was much dimmer that raises the co2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv.
One must look at coincidences of situations for either cooling or warming of our planet. The scientific community as a whole is behind man made global warming as the variables stack up during our lifetime. the 31,000 mentioned above is a tiny piece of the worlds scientfic community.

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

eyexer- To name a few, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, the national climatic data center, The US National Academy of Sciences and....NASA. The list is too long to put here. You can look them up quite easily.

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Apparently this group of scientists doesn't believe you Fismahn. And you may want to research the IPCC before holding them up as experts.

Taking a group of fellow scientists to task for alarmism and flawed analysis, a leading group of scientists published an open letter to Congress this week refuting much of the data indicating that the earth is warming. The latest back and forth between scientists comes as Democrats and the Obama administration continue to push for cap-and-trade taxes and environmental regulations on the amount of carbon emissions being created by business.

climate,change,letter,william,gray,easterbrookThese “climate alarmists who appear to be unaware of ‘what is happening to our planet's climate,’ as well as the vast amount of research that has produced that knowledge,’ states the letter signed by, among others, William Gray, one of the nation’s leading experts on hurricanes. Gray, who teaches at Colorado State University, creates a predication of hurricanes every year that generally has tremendous accuracy.

Specifically, the group was responding a letter written Jan. 28 by 18 scientists to members of the U.S. House stating that global warming is a fact, and that the earth is heading toward calamity if carbon emissions are not curbed. But Gray and the others warned that there is ample evidence on the record refuting these alarmist conjectures.

“A lengthy review of their claims and others that climate alarmists frequently make can be found on the Web site of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (see Carbon Dioxide and Earth's Future: Pursuing the Prudent Path),” the new letter states. “That report offers a point-by-point rebuttal of all of the claims of the "group of eighteen," citing in every case peer-reviewed scientific research on the actual effects of climate change during the past several decades.”

The letter asks if recent reports “provide any real-world evidence of Earth's seas inundating coastal lowlands around the globe? No. Increased human mortality? No. Plant and animal extinctions? No. Declining vegetative productivity? No. More frequent and deadly coral bleaching? No. Marine life dissolving away in acidified oceans? No.

“Quite to the contrary, in fact, these reports provide extensive empirical evidence that these things are not happening. And in many of these areas, the referenced papers report finding just the opposite response to global warming, i.e., biosphere-friendly effects of rising temperatures and rising CO2 levels.”

Read more on Newsmax.com: Scientists Publish Letter Blasting Global Warming 'Alarmists'
Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama's Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Fishmahn since you like to look at websites, here are a couple more that apparently are not part of your 97% estimate.
www.nipcc.org www.co2science.org

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

fishmahn Said:
eyexer- To name a few, the intergovernmental Panel on Climate change, the national climatic data center, The US National Academy of Sciences and....NASA. The list is too long to put here. You can look them up quite easily.

oh you mean all the government funded organizations lol.

 

eyexer's picture
eyexer
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/28/07

fishmahn Said:
For the record unless you people haven't seen, Even Exxon Mobile has made a statement admitting mans part in the current global warming situation.
Co2 is just one part of the puzzle. If you go back also to the Ordivician I'm aware of high co2 levels. Glaciation was occurring at this time. There were also other variables such as very low ocean temperatures which created a huge absorption for co2 comsumption. Also the taconic orogeny which also created a great comsumption of co2. The sun was much dimmer that raises the co2 threshold for glaciation to a staggering 3000 ppmv.
One must look at coincidences of situations for either cooling or warming of our planet. The scientific community as a whole is behind man made global warming as the variables stack up during our lifetime. the 31,000 mentioned above is a tiny piece of the worlds scientfic community.

and I"m sure that wasn't a PR ploy by exxon,lol

 

bucksnbears's picture
bucksnbears
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/5/07

Fishmahn... been huntin or fishing at all ???. hows it been?? crawlers or leeches??  just wondering

the more food you have in your mouth, the better you can taste it !!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

bigguy do not be to hard on him, after all he has to at least pretend he believes his client has a case otherwise taking money would be unethical!!!!!!!!!!

I listed the one piece only as an example of counter research and peer reviewed material that holds a different position than AGW is FACT!!!!!!!!!

A while back I had a list of all Gov sponsored research into GW and the money trail is clear, if you came back with a report stating that facts found not facts produced to meet a predetermined outcome, funding for follow up research was cut or not granted at all. But if you where the tail wagging the dog you got research money as long as it fit into the carbon is bad criteria.

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere. Or if the atmosphere was a football field, CO2 would take up 1.5 inches. 93% of all CO2 is found in the oceans and these same scientists that insist that AGW is fact have had to recant a lot about the oceans and their ablity to take in more CO2 without the dreaded acidification that they claim was going to happen.

Even the IPCC which has little real credibility after the last two publication manipulations, has said that we really do not understand the true mechanism of the oceans cleansing capacity! They worked on the belief that carbon in and carbon out was neutral from the oceans, but with increases in carbons in the atmosphere, the oceans are taking in more CO2 and the acidification rates are way below projections!

So as I stated before fish your knowledge of this is much less than you really think if you believe that AGW is a fact and can be proven! It is an evolving theory that is evolving and many who once held hard beliefs that Armageddon was near, are now being awakened to the fact that research and science is far, far away from having a handle on it. Especially when all the computer models used to project this cannot duplicate the past climates they supposedly are using as a base line!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

biggguy,

I'm impressed with your listing of  "well known experts".  One is an "english" speaking group that gathers every 3rd staturday at the Shooters sports bar in Tushimi and they discuss things like computer networking monitoring and new developements in IPhones. I  you want to "follow the money" it's difficult because much of the funding comes from donations that are kept "confidential".  Do you suppose Chevron or big industry is sponsoring them????
I also hope you realize the difference between carbon and co2 levels.  Fox seems to use the words interchangeably which of course gives a very distorted picture.
The fact remains the well  knowledgeable institutions in the US and globally endorse the concept of global warming.  A conspiracy of money??  I think you're right but your barking at the wrong tree.

Buck&Burrs,, Slip bobbering with leeches is working the best for me.  More fish and less tackle lost in the lake.
 

Farnorth's picture
Farnorth
Offline
Joined: 5/23/02

All the studies that are being done on BOTH sides are generating knowledge and vast amounts of data.  Plenty of crap for the experts to sort through and either keep or discard.  In the end, we expand our knowledge base of our environment.  That's not a bad thing.

People said the Space Program was a waste and NASA was bad.  There are a lot of things we wouldn't have today without what was done there.

bigguy1's picture
bigguy1
Offline
Joined: 12/12/06

Sorry about that fishmahn. Here is the correct website. www.nipccreport.org

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

I'm not saying we're dealing with only one variable but considering the state of our planet now, co2 definitely seems to be an item to consider. I know our co2 output globally is small in comparison to the entire yearly carbon cycle ranking somewhere around 30 gigatons but it still adds up now because land and oceans can't absorb the extra output. Year after year there's about 40% of this excess added. .AS a result co2 is at it's highest level in 20 million years. A natural change of 100 ppm, if one looks back at history, normally takes somewhere in the neighborhood of 5000 to 20000 years. The recent increase of 100 ppm has taken just 120 years.
I've looked at different things that are capable of changing climate. For one, sun intensity and climate are at opposite ends of the spectrum during this most recent increase. One would think that if the activity was lower the climate would be cooling, not increasing as it is. 2000 -2009 is the hottest time line ever recorded globally and 2010 is the hottest year on record tied with 2005. Something definitely seems to be occurring with our planet. I know of no one or entity that fully understands all the facets in regard to our present environmental climatic shift but to look the other way and regard it as a nasty conspiracy theory in my opinion is short sighted.

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Fish keep talking about CO2 as if you really know any history on the subject at all!

There has historically been much more CO2 in our atmosphere than exists today. For example, during the Jurassic Period (200 mya), average CO2 concentrations were about 1800 ppm or about 4.7 times higher than today. The highest concentrations of CO2 during all of the Paleozoic Era occurred during the Cambrian Period, nearly 7000 ppm -- about 18 times higher than today.

 The Carboniferous Period and the Ordovician Period were the only geological periods during the Paleozoic Era when global temperatures were as low as they are today. To the consternation of global warming proponents, the Late Ordovician Period was also an Ice Age while at the same time CO2 concentrations then were nearly 12 times higher than today-- 4400 ppm. According to greenhouse theory, Earth should have been exceedingly hot. Instead, global temperatures were no warmer than today. Clearly, other factors besides atmospheric carbon influence earth temperatures and global warming.

 The above info is from only a single summary report that reviewed NOAA's findings, the author is not a believer that CO2 is a driver  of temp change, but an affect!
Your statement that 20 million years is only significant in that it is impressive sounding when in actual reality of climate periods it is relatively insignificant!

It is why nobody on the AGW side is willing to take this issue into court because they would get laughed out of the room. The data is just not there to sustain the theory in any manner except when studies are done with a pre determined outcome and the data manipulated to make it fit and other data hidden or discarded.
 

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02

Don't forget that as this issue has been looked upon, Keeling's work is becoming less and less the bible on CO2 because of the environmental influences in regards to the testing station. Other studies by Beck if memory serves me shows that we have had levels of 380 dating back into the early 1800's and as recent as the 1940's.

Also testing methods changed with Keeling leaving many wondering if his testing method is the most accurate!

In my lifetime I have seen fence row to fence row farming and the return of CRP and game to the landscape.Now we face again the prosepect of fence row to fence row again! Sportsman are our own worst enemy in that we fail to look forward and focus to much on the now!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

extinctions of species in the world's oceans are inevitable if current trends of overfishing, habitat loss, global warming and pollution continue, a panel of renowned marine scientists warned Tuesday.

The combination of problems suggests there's a brewing worldwide die-off of species that would rival past mass extinctions, the 27 scientists said in a preliminary report presented to the United Nations.

Vanishing species

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman,
The above was just released today. You obviously don't
read posts too throughly. I listed the ordivician period previously as an example of high co2 levels and glaciation. What was going on in that time frame in regard to ocean diversity, temperature, what was going on with mountain ranges, scouring etc. and the relative absorption possible at that time in regard to now are like comparing corn flakes to sulfuric acid esters of linear galactans!

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

Hardwaterman, if co2 is the effect, what is the driver of what's happening now. Or do you believe nothing is happening and it's life as usual?

fishmahn's picture
fishmahn
Offline
Joined: 12/30/10

The chief causes for extinctions at the moment are overfishing and habitat loss, but global warming is "increasingly adding to this," the report said.

Carbon dioxide from the burning of fossil fuels ends up sinking in the oceans, which then become more acidic, devastating sensitive coral reefs. Warmer ocean temperatures also are shifting species from their normal habitats, Rogers said. Non-native species moving into new areas can cause havoc to those ecosystems

Pages