Global Warming is to blame???

Pages

418 posts / 0 new
Last post
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

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

Maybe you should take up scuba diving or just browse some reefs and check it out for yourself if you do happen to think nothing is happening.

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Kinda funny how scientists tend disagree on the whole global warming issue. It makes a person wonder about the credibility of the scientific community.

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

These are the same groups that have cried wolf over and over and suddenly they should be held in high regard fish?

It is a news release, nothing more to hype the need for more funding. The so called bleaching of the coral reefs are not happening, nor is the acidic levels rising at the so called rates that these buffoons have predicted before. The only real relevant thing is the over harvesting!

The question you should ask yourself is why, with all the future predictions based on computer models can they not duplicate any of the previous periods with the CO2 levels?

The reason is simple, the data input and programs are skewed to generated AGW!

I have no issue with moving away from fossil fuels, I do however have issue with it being used as a scape goat to advance an agenda that is not backed with proper science and only with manipulated data! You can regurgitate all this stuff you want it does not change the fact that the science is so incomplete they are guessing more than theorizing!

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!

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

for every doom and gloom theory that comes along there is something that comes along to contradict what they fear.  Here are some stellar examples. 
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba551/
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/The_Ice_Caps_are_Growing.pdf
http://www.canadafreepress.com/
http://www.dailytech.com/article.aspx?newsid=8641
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948
http://newsbusters.org/node/13948
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_i...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/08/15/goddard_arctic_ice_mystery/
http://www.heartland.org/policybot/results/851/Polar_ice_cap_studies_ref...
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/inconvenient-truth-gore-claims...

this is just a small sampling from sources all over the world, even some of the worlds leading liberal meccas.  I especially like the dailytech article.  It pretty much blows a hole in the "all the scientists in the world support global warming" BS. 

 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

fishmahn Said:
Maybe you should take up scuba diving or just browse some reefs and check it out for yourself if you do happen to think nothing is happening.

coral reefs have die off all the time, sometimes the corals even kill each other when their "biological weapons" get out of control.  When a hurricane disturbs a reef covering it in silt, or from a receeding storm surge dragging too many nutrients back into the sea, even seasonal runoff causing higher nutrient loads,  tsunamis, earthquakes, etc. etc..  there's dead reefs all over the planet, and they'll be covered with live polyps and teaming with other creatures again next year, until the next hurricane, tsunami, or ND flood that will wash more nutrients than usual into the gulf expanding the usual "dead zone" and killing more coral, that will again come back next year after the excess nutrients are consumed by the algae that originally choked out the coral in the first place, that algae dies and is either consumed by other creatures or it settles to the bottom of the ocean where it will eventually be compressed from the other years woth of dead algae and organisms settling on top of it and if its under enough pressure mixed with various amounts of heat if it gets close enough to the earths core as it slides along its tectonic plate it will turn into crude oil, natural gas, or shale and so on and so forth...

dead and dying reefs are an essential part of "reef building" wich sometimes even builds islands.  Remember its just the surface of a reef that is alive.  That living surface needs the skeletons of the previous living corals as their base...and so on.  coral reefs will be here long after were gone.

but yes, I can show you a dead reef and make a very compelling end of days argument, just as long as you don't visit that same reef next year. 

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

oh and that bleached coral head you keep seeing on TV with a crying tree hugger next to it isn't our fault.  that "bleached" coral just picked a fight with a tuffer kid on the block.

corals, specifically small polyped stony corals (sps corals) posses powerfull stinging cells varying in toxicity to use as defense against things that may want to eat them, but to especially defend themselves against the "coral next door" when different species of corals grow too close to eachother they extend out their tiny tentacles stinging the flesh of one another.  the one with the strongest sting wins and eats the flesh of the loser right off its bones, leaving a bright white "bleached" looking dead coral skeleton, that the winning coral will now use as a new base to continue growing on, or a tree hugger will photograph and use to fund an agenda.

Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson's picture
Ed "Backwater E...
Offline
Joined: 4/9/11

No matter what you call it, it's very hard not to see we are living in a time of global climatic shifts. Just look around our region once.

It directly coincides with mans rise into the industrial age and our use of fossil fuels, that is a hard fact to overlook.

 
Never in the history of earth has such dramatic changed occurred in such a short time without the impact of a major outside force. A force such as a asteroid strike, solar flares, or a volcano so large it effects the atmosphere and the climate on a global scale. 
 
It is a reasonable inference given the totality of evidence that man has a hand in this abrupt climactic change.  

 


BACKWATER GUIDING
 " ED on the RED "
           ><,sUMo,>     
Allen's picture
Allen
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 1/9/02

BringingTheRain Said:
Kinda funny how scientists tend disagree on the whole global warming issue. It makes a person wonder about the credibility of the scientific community.

Why?  

The scientific community has independents, liberals, and conservatives in it just like any other occupation.  Regardless of political train of thought, scientists are expected to objectively analyze something.  Not all do this, those are the ones that should lose their credibility, not the entire community.

You wouldn't condemn the whole community of farmers for not agreeing on what is going to be the most profitable come this fall, would you?

“Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it.” ~ Mark Twain

guywhofishes's picture
guywhofishes
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 5/4/07

If we have had a hand (which I'm not convinced of either way) it's more likely due to our changing the landscape via farming. Anybody flying over the country can see that we've really impacted the solar absorption and evapotranspiration cycle. What pray tell is the solution to that? I don't think it's our burning of fossil fuel.

+1 Allen (on the disagreement) It's too complex and difficult for any side to claim victory now if ever. It could easily be solar. A blip in the sun's output dwarfs all the energy we've ever consumed.

We've seen crazy weather before on the prairies - the 1880s were insane compared to now. Was that man's fault?

Finally.... The earth has recovered, indeed thrived, despite all the previous natural spikes Ed mentioned, so get over yourselves. Man's impact will be dealt with by the earth - the same as all the others. We're not the great and powerful Oz.

 

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

guywhofishes,
YOu're right on. We are NOT by any stretch the all powerful Oz. As for a blip in the sun's energy we are at a period of lower activity despite the warming climate.
In reference to bleaching who have some of you been listening too in regard to the warming of ocean currents??? One only has to go back to 1998 with the el Nino to see the effect of "warming". There was the worst bleaching ever recorded. MOre then 15% of the reefs in the world disappeared from that year. Go to the western India Ocean where over 90% of the coral reefs were bleached. AFter going back a decade later and surveying over 50000 miles at over 20 sites researchers confirmed what had been suspected, Four species of fish may now be locally extinct. The Seychelles (reer) are in various states of total collapse. When this occurs there is no cover for fish or food and the entire chain is effected. Coral reefs are very close to thermal limits and warming will eventually effect all of us. AS far as the ocean's ablility to "cleanse" itself? Guess some of you think there are no limits. That must be why you can go up to the Exxon Valdez spill site and still see oil. Just turn over a rock and look. Or how long were you talking for this cleansing to occur? Man is a relatively recent arrival in regard to the planet. Perhaps after we're gone things will return.

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

multispecies,
Guess that stinging scenario of yours must imply nearly total consumption of all species in some cases. I'd like to see the biological mechanism involved there.
The fast branching coral is usually the first positive effect of a reef attempting to recover. There are areas where these are at less then 1%. Nancy Knowlton, marine biologist of Scripps institution of Oceanography, said " reefs have collapsed catastrophically in the three decades I've been studying them."

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

How many times do the research "scientists" have to be busted fudging or altering data before you global warming believers change your mind?

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

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

guywhofishes,
You mentioned the earth has thrived after past natural disasters. IT has if you discount what happened to the indigenous species after each disaster.

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

Gutshot,
Go on a trip, visit some islands, grab your snorkel and get back to me okay?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

sorry fishmahn, I'm just basing my information off of nearly 20 years experience in aquaculture, propagating no less than a couple hundred different species of corals, import/export of maricultured (planted and grown in the ocean to be harvested) from locations around the globe (like the seychelles), almost daily relations with people involved with the mariculture programs from several locations around the world.

I guess I need to drop the coral and pick up a mouse to get my information from greenpeace.com so I can get the facts straight.


multispecies,
Guess that stinging scenario of yours must imply nearly total consumption of all species in some cases. I'd like to see the biological mechanism involved there.
The fast branching coral is usually the first positive effect of a reef attempting to recover. There are areas where these are at less then 1%. Nancy Knowlton, marine biologist of Scripps institution of Oceanography, said " reefs have collapsed catastrophically in the three decades I've been studying them."
 

I listed those mechanisms as hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, runoff etc.

sink a ship and tell me how long it takes for it to be encrusted in coral

and according to what you've just said, all the coral in the world will be dead and gone in a few years.  at least the religios freaks give us an exact date for the end of the world so we can mark our calenders for when we get to laugh at them.

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

Multispecies,
Sink a ship and see how long before it's encrusted in coral? I guess that depends on how isolated the area is right? Since you deal with this on a personal level you must also be aware of the thermal sensitivity of our reefs and the effects of the variance of less then a degree.. You no doubt also are aware of the satellites incorporated by NASA and other organizations that show the effects of co2 and and heat retention. You mention Greenpeace. Are you a member?.
I said " all our coral reefs will be dead and gone in a few years?" Where did I say that? Given the fragility of a portion of our environment don't you think it our responsibility to investigate all situations that may be causing a situation that could change life as we know it? Or would that be too inconvenient for us as a specie?

Hardwaterman's picture
Hardwaterman
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 11/6/02
Never in the history of earth has such dramatic changed occurred in such a short time without the impact of a major outside force. A force such as a asteroid strike, solar flares, or a volcano so large it effects the atmosphere and the climate on a global scale.

What is an outside force? Is it a meteorite,comet, or earthquake,volcano? Eddy, with all due respect volcano's earthquakes are part of earth. Volcano's in the past have affected climate change around the globe much more quickly than what has happened. The little ice age for example which interrupted the natural warming of the planet and ended about the time that records where being kept by humans around the world in regards to temps was volcanic eruptions dumping dirt into the atmosphere that stopped the heating process and it took 400+ years to wane.

The shifting of the Continental plates is having an affect, GW was blamed for the drop in water depth in the Great lakes, but what has been discovered is that the real loss of depth has been rebound of the surface from being compressed by the glaciers.

The list goes on and on of things blamed as being a result of AGW and they are being proven wrong.

There is reasoned debate as to the CO2 having been inaccurately recorded and thus skewing todays readings. People like fish here want to discount Greenland by dismissing it as a regional affect. Yet science has proven it was a global event.

Again and again, the same old tired BS is trotted out as a scare tactic to advance a political agenda not a science backed theory. The simple truth is that we do not have complete enough science to determine warming and mean temps compared to past times and without the science data projections into the future are worthless. They are conjecture and opinion not theory based on factual findings!

Boston and Vancouver just got done playing for the Stanley Cup in hockey. Prior to the start of the series, on paper everything pointed to a easy win by the Canuks. Superior stats in PP, and PK, almost equal defense, skill level of the goalies based on season stats etc.... Yet Boston won the series.

You wonder what this has to do with this subject? It underscores the fact that not all the data needed to predict the outcome was available to the forecasters. Injuries, loss of players to suspension, character of the players and desire etc....

The sad truth is that less than 20% of the needed data for future models is hard data the rest is conjecture as the data is missing so they plug in made up data that is not without bias or they exclude data as Mann did to make his projections more dramatic!

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

Hardwaterman,
I hate to be redundant with posts but I really don't think anyone doubts that events outside our control have changed our environment. Climate can and will change probably with catastrophic ramifications. There is a multitude of variables to consider. Some we have to power to control, others we do not. One has to consider the present and near future variables that are pertinent to our entire microcosm at this time as I mentioned...before. One of the many things in the formula is co2. We can control that. NASA and other organizations have shown over and again the heat retention due to greenhouse gases. "If lightning strikes in a forest it will start a fire. That doesn't mean we can't do the same thing with matches.
P.s. IF you go back to historical co2 concentrations, reread my ordivician post. And btw I'm not saying co2 is the only variable we should be considering but it is one we can control.

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

fish again and again you keep bringing up CO2 as if the levels today are abnormal or dangerous. You keep ignoring the fact that Keelings work is now being re-examined as accurate. You keep talking about historic levels and rise but research is showing the rise is not what you and other claim and that the rate of concentration has risen and fallen over the last 200 years from 380 to less than 280!

You keep ignoring the fact that CO2 rise in some very well qualified,peer reviewed studies is an affect not cause and is irrelevant! Which begs the real question as to why bother with an irrelevant gas?

CO2 has to be relevant for people like you and you will ignore anything that says contrary no matter how solid the science is behind it, because without CO2 being relevant you have nothing!!!!!!!!!

That is why the science needs to be more complete, because why waste time and resources on controlling something that is not a driver and is irrelevant to heating of the earth!

The only reason is for financial gain and that is fraud if you misrepresent the value of controlling it!

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!

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

 Nuke the Whales

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Ed "Backwater Eddy" Carlson Said:

No matter what you call it, it's very hard not to see we are living in a time of global climatic shifts. Just look around our region once.

It directly coincides with mans rise into the industrial age and our use of fossil fuels, that is a hard fact to overlook.

 
Never in the history of earth has such dramatic changed occurred in such a short time without the impact of a major outside force. A force such as a asteroid strike, solar flares, or a volcano so large it effects the atmosphere and the climate on a global scale. 
 
It is a reasonable inference given the totality of evidence that man has a hand in this abrupt climactic change.  

 

Actually, whether it is fact or not is the reason there is debate over 'global warming'

BringingTheRain's picture
BringingTheRain
Offline
Joined: 1/5/10

Allen Said:

BringingTheRain Said:
Kinda funny how scientists tend disagree on the whole global warming issue. It makes a person wonder about the credibility of the scientific community.

Why?  

The scientific community has independents, liberals, and conservatives in it just like any other occupation.  Regardless of political train of thought, scientists are expected to objectively analyze something.  Not all do this, those are the ones that should lose their credibility, not the entire community.

You wouldn't condemn the whole community of farmers for not agreeing on what is going to be the most profitable come this fall, would you?

Whether they disagree with each because of ideologies or because they don't know what they are talking about, doesn't really matter. When you have people that don't agree with each other and they both say they are right, you have a problem. When you have those types of people mixed up in a community, the whole thing loses cred.

Scientists aren't exactly farmers. Farmers aren't out trying to prove facts about the world, they are growing a crop for money. Not all crops grow the same on everyone's land.

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

fishmahn Said:
Multispecies,
Sink a ship and see how long before it's encrusted in coral? I guess that depends on how isolated the area is right? Since you deal with this on a personal level you must also be aware of the thermal sensitivity of our reefs and the effects of the variance of less then a degree.. You no doubt also are aware of the satellites incorporated by NASA and other organizations that show the effects of co2 and and heat retention. You mention Greenpeace. Are you a member?.
I said " all our coral reefs will be dead and gone in a few years?" Where did I say that? Given the fragility of a portion of our environment don't you think it our responsibility to investigate all situations that may be causing a situation that could change life as we know it? Or would that be too inconvenient for us as a specie?

I am only aware that the couple hundred species of corals I have worked with thrive and propagate in temps between 72 and 84 degrees and survive an even broader temperature grade...not 1 degree.

obviosly you need to sink my ship in a semi reef friendly area, not over the abyssal plain where coral does not ever grow.  I thought you had more common sense and understanding to see what I meant by that scenario.  and obvoiusly you yourself have never put on the goggles and taken a look for yourself.

satelite images of effects of co2???  how long have those sattelites been in orbit? and they take a couple pictures and say look see what co2 has done to our planet?

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

You speak of Keeling but as challengers try to debate every other aspect of climate science his half century of carbon dioxide measurements stand unchallenged.Carbon dioxide levels are increasing and at a rapid rate. You mention they've gone up and down. This is accurate if you go back far enough. Recently (industrial revolution) they've been accelerating. The only others that will refute this are perhaps beck or oreilley. When talk began of emission curbing regs. the fossil fuel industry mobilized . These opponents to the views increased their attacks on Science by taking advantage of the internet to distribute their view outside the usual scientific channels. You're probably responding to people like Richard Lidzen. He is often quoted by the GOP on capitol hill. Even he doesn't refute the idea of the planet warming. He states that as the planet increases in temperature there will be a cloud shift so this will cause a" manageable" heat buildup.. Dr Keeling's widow stated her husband would be greatly dismayed that his work has been subjected to political rhetoric. BTW he was a registered republlcan.

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

Multispecies,
Are you serious or is it sarcasm? Sometimes it's difficult in this type of forum. As for the 1 degree I work in a clinical atmosphere where metric/celsius is used by habit. For some types of coral summer temps with an increase of 1 degree C can initiate bleaching. Yes???? Your response to NASA's work is amusing. Have you ever looked at what they've actually contributed? Guess you're not a NASA fan.

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

fish that is not the case at all. In respect to the numbers he produced, nobody has said they where fudged, what they have proven is that his research did not take into account the varibles of changes to the surroundings that influcence those readings.

But keep it up, the more you talk the more it is clear that you have a standard play book with scripted anwsers!

THE ONLY FACT IN THIS DEBATE IS THAT THE SCIENCE IS INCOMPLETE TO PROVE AGW AS A FACT!
 
(Note the Caps are not intended to be a shout, just to highlight the crux of this issue.)

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

Hard,
The science isn't there to prove it's a fact?  To definitively say this with all certainty I agree with you.  The FACT is the levels are going up.  As of December 2010 at the mau loa center the readings were 390ppm.  What ever is happening I don't see it as a real plus considering the huge  energy holding capability of a relatively small portion of the total atmosphere.  Perhaps you should discuss the changes that are making this only a benign situation.  Speaking of scripted answers how about something  that isn't a product of petro inc?

multi-species-angler's picture
multi-species-angler
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 4/26/09

I've been hearing this rhetoric since the mid 80's and its always been the same "we're all doomed", "the planet will be devastated within a decade if we keep this up". still waiting, and still driving a 17mpg pickup.

fish just give me an approximate date you'll plan to be able to say "I told ya so" and I will keep this thread in my favorites until then so I can open it and be the first one to eat my shoe.

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

Fish you fell into the same trap so many others do in that you think doing something even if it is wrong is better than doing nothing!!!!!!!!!!

The point is crystal clear regarding this issue. GW is occurring has been occurring since before the ice sheets melted away. We take a snippet in time(that is what written records on this are a snippet) and with our ego's insist that we are the cause and that we have to do something!

Take water vapors for example they are the most abundant of all GHG in the atmosphere and also are the least understood in regards to the impact they have on warming of the planet. All the blame is put on CO2 when in fact it is just as likely the rise in CO2 is a result of increases in water vapor which is increasing the temp causing more moisture to stay aloft and not washing the CO2 out to be absorbed by the water and land!
Then there is the school of thought that the increases in water are offset with the formation of clouds which reflect the sun and slow down warming.

Then there is the issue of where CO2 concentrations have the most affect in reflecting heat back to earth or trapping it. Almost all of the CO2 rise is documented at levels well below those that are considered to be the heat trapping layer!

So lets do this one more time, if CO2 levels have increased as you state, there still remains the issue of whether CO2 is cause or affect. If cause then all the horrid things that your clients claim should be happening at a much faster rate than it is if at all. If it is affect which has as equal amount of credibility then lowering CO2 and not addressing the cause of the affect is a waste.

Which brings us right back to what I posted before, the only real facts in this issue remains that this! WE DO NOT HAVE THE SCIENCE TO DETERMINE A PROPER COURSE OF ACTION, and unfortuneately the science community and organizations like the IPCC and others have doctored data and reports for the sake of financial gain.

So instead they use gloom and doom to try and sell dog crap as gold!!!!!!!!!!!!

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

Fish,
You accuse hardwater of only repeating something from "petro inc" and yet you expect others to accept your statements as fact, even though they seem to come from "global warming alarmist" perspective. Each person reading this thread can form their own opinion based on which scientists they choose to believe. A group of global warming alarmist 'scientists' being proven to hide, distort, and alter data to support their position does not help your cause. They were hung by their own e-mails in the Climategate scandal. Does that mean what they are saying now is false? Depends again on perspective, but it does make it more difficult to accept their conclusions. 

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

Harwater,
Who ever said warming has not occurred before??>? Remember the little comparison of just because lightning strikes(nature) can start a fire, it does not mean Man can't do the same thing with matches???You also speak of water vapor.  Water vapor can trap heat however it doesn't stay locked within the entire shroud of the atmosphere does it?   It eventually rains and dissipates.  You mention the vapor may be holding the co2 not allowing the oceans or land to absorb it.  So the water vapor is holding around 40% of the co2?  Is it just possible with the warmer currents and other slowing of absorption it's just not happening period to the 40%?
For the record global warming is a scientific consensus recognized by the national science academies of all major industrialized countries and not rejected by any scientific body of national or international standing.
multi-
Anything occurred from 1980 since thats your starting point?  Perhaps the retreat of arctic sea ice, antartic land ice, perma frost or maybe an island or two gone ,...missing??  Does it seem like we may be subject to frequent extremes in weather events such as droughts, heatwaves,  tidal waves and heavy rainfall globally?
As of may 2010 the only member of unfccc that were asked to  sign the treaty and didn't were the USA and....(we're in good company here) Afgahnistan.
By 2009 the mean global temperatures was 14.5 C.  The warmest is hundreds and probably thousands of years.

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

bigguy,
Global warming alarmist?  read above post.  It appears the alarmists have infiltrated nearly every national and international scientific facility on the planet.

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

Luv to stay but the flood calls.

cynical's picture
cynical
Offline
Joined: 10/27/04

fishmahn Said:
Gutshot,
Go on a trip, visit some islands, grab your snorkel and get back to me okay?

I just got back from vacation.   What is your point?

"The only enemy of guns is rust and politicians."

"The best defense against usurpatory government is an assertive citizenry."

William F. Buckley, Jr.
"Unarmed helplessness is for sheep and the French."  Ted Nugent

"The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."
 -Thomas Jefferson

The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.
-Thomas Jefferson

 

 

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

Again you miss the point that a consensus is not fact, nor is a consensus alway right. The consensus of the 70's was Global cooling and glaciers reforming. Many of that same group by the 90's where of a consensus that AGW was the next crisis.

To better grasp this, 1 out of 87 grants awarded where given to GW research once it was clear that the scare of the return of the ice age had waned. So you go in write your grant stating you want to research on climate change and do not include the idea that it is caused by man or CO2 the grants do not get handed out! Funny how that works and you wonder why there is a consensus?

Like so many things the more you peel away the layers the more you learn. This is the case with AGW. What I have learned is that when you peel the layers back the data used and the claims made are not standing up!

For example as I pointed out, with the Great Lakes, the head lines stated that GW was going to cause the Great Lakes to disappear. As stated before the change in depth of the GL is a result of crust rebound which in the future threatens the Great Lakes in that natural barriers that hold back water currently are going to be gone and the lakes will drain into the Atlantic. Distortion of the facts to fit an agenda has soured many on what can and what should be considered with any seriousness.

I want to know fish what is going on, but I am not blind to rhetoric and to deceit, championed by the IPCC! Read some of the many dissenting comments from the contributors on the manipulation of their work and how it was presented and represented by this body.

There simply is not currently any credibility in the AGW claims even if they are correct. From Mann to the IPCC the constant manipulation to inflate things into"crisis" mode had gutted this!

Now we see again the left's philosophy of never let a crisis get away with out exploiting it is shining through. Katrina,tornado's,floods,blizzards,record cold,record heat, it is all tied to GW according to them.

Stop and think for a moment about this. Devils Lake is a great example, it has in the past been this large or larger before climate conditions changed and it started to dry down. Now it somehow is a surprise the lake is once again returning to a size it was not so long ago and it is global warming that is the culprit, same with the flooding in Minot and Bismarck. Models never predicted these events because they did not have the data in order to do it.

So if your arguments are not taken seriously it is more the fault of people crying wolf and getting caught doing it!

Thus it is clear, we need unbiased studies done that can be trusted and not manipulated! then come back and talk!

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

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/22/nasa-scientist-accused-using-celeb-status-among-environmental-groups-to-enrich/

Thought this was funny considering what we have been talking about, especially the lack of ethics when it comes to money and grants and funding!

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

Hardwaterman,
You just gave me a good laugh.  It appears this topic as been twisted into credibility in regard to fraud, furthering agendas etc and then you post that link as????????
First it comes from the Fox Fantasy network.  It only gets better whenI see the prosecution.
ATP, the same group that's attempting to overturn Colorado's renewable energy ,mandate.  Even Xcel energy is confused by the suit.  The voters  of the state started the movement to bring more wind and solar power to their state!  Gail Scwartz, Democratic congress woman is weighing a bill that would compel 501(c) 4 nonprofit groups like ATP and it's affiliate Western Tradition to reveal their donors and their contribution to 527 groups that have been highly active in recent elections.
Even republican politicians have argued the groups have gone too far using questionable campaign tactics to further pro coal,. pro oil and gas!
It seems to me you really aren't attempting to find any real answers at all.  Talk  about parroting what you hear.   By using this as a part of your argument any credibility you may have had is gone.  You're mouthing the ultra right wing fringe. 
Let me ask you this.  What exactly are you getting by mouth this  fluff???

johnr's picture
johnr
Offline
GREENHORN
Joined: 2/18/04

svnmag Said:

LOL, i remember that '77 topic we where all going to freeze.

Neat

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

John R,
What's so funny about freezing? When warming occurs and accelerates what happens?? There is a disappearance of ice from the glaciers and polar ice caps. This is cool fresh water that flows into the northern Atlantic. This will in turn shut down the Gulf stream which keeps the North America and Europe warm. You probably didn't look beyond the cover of either of those magazines.

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

No fish, the issues surrounding this NASA person are not new, however you really tell a lot about your client,when you dis Fox as you did. Like it or not, the issue is credibility and the GW crowd has none because of the actions of the people at the top from the IPCC all the way down. NASA,NOAA,all are dependent upon Gov funding and need crisis level issues to sustain funding when budgets are tight.

If the verdict is in, then why is more funding and study needed? You have given us the solution, end CO2 use by man now! What more is needed to be studied?

See in the real world and not the to use your term FANTASY world, credibility matters a good deal.To make it simple for you to grasp, what has been taking place is the people advancing GW at the crisis level where walking under an apple tree and had an apple fall on them, but they reported that the entire tree fell on them instead. Others said, show me the tree we want to see where it happened and why. Your leaders caught in the lie, then said we removed the tree, and filled in the hole and planted a new one, you have to trust us that it happened!

Do you get it now?

Every change to something is linked back no matter how minuscule it is if there is even a link, to GW!

So again, my statement that the science is incomplete is accurate, and that fraud, deception and improved ethics on the side of research and reviews has to be elevated so that we can get an honest and clear answer as to whether or not man has actually influenced the rate at which the planet is warming and to what end that warming rate may be slowed if it actually should be slowed!

Remember, NOAA,NASA,IPCC as well as many of the science review journals all have been caught with their pants down endorsing data they knew was incorrect! So trotting them out as gospel is a joke!

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!

Pages