True - 'global cooling = global cooling'

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]* The atmospheric CO2 concentration is much higher than it ever has been in the fossil record. Conservative projections put it at twice the previous highs by 2050. The rate of release is accelerating.
* CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat that would otherwise have escaped to space (the "greenhouse effect")

CO2 is probably the biggest greenhouse gas, but there are others like methane (cows are a big producers of methane... when they fart I think most if not all mammals including humans produce some methane when they fart but apparently cows are the main one)

Quote[/b] ]God save us from the gullible who believe whatever they are told..
sad..
well, its how the democrat party keeps it base..fear and ignorance.
nothing new there.

you keep saying you're not conservative and blah blah but you sure love bashing liberals and democrats. what's more, you have nothing to back up your wild claims. You also complain about this being political and all that crap but it is YOU who is turning this political. Is life all about politics to you? I bet life is just one huge conspiracy from scientists and everyone who doesn't agree with you against poor innocent people like you who are actually smarter but have no way of proving that and instead resort to graphs that are only meant to make a point by being very inaccurate, present many arguments that just sound good but fall under close scrutiny, and also use outdated information. I'd say conservatives and republicans are the gullible ones that keeps its base on fear and ignorance, but that's another thread.

Quote[/b] ]* Aerosols have the opposite effect. Increasing atmospheric sulphates (anyone remember acid rain?) could counteract the greenhouse effect.

any sources?

ok, here's the deal let me sum it up. CO2 traps heat. Humans have been dumping CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution. Through many methods of measuring past temperatures and all of them agreeing, scientists determined that at about the same time of the industrial revolution, the global temperature shot up and has been rising as CO2 rises. (oh... about satellites... correct me if i'm wrong... and I don't doubt I am... but what about clouds? don't they interfere?). Now satellites and boueys/etc have confirmed that there is more heat being absorbed by the earth than it is being released. The VAST majority of scientists think global warming is happening and that it is being caused by humans and could become a huge problem. The scientists that disagree usually work for oil companies.

 

[Zongyi_Yang]

Quote[/b] ]cows are a big producers of methane... when they fart

Actually, most of it is from their burps as they try to digest their meals

. Zongyi

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

details, details. LOL!

 

[Finch]

ok first of all WHO CARES wHat other people think?

The expets have acess to all the data and the conclusion is pretty unanimous. Who cares what people think on those conclusions?

Arguing it to try and convince someone who does not want to beleive this is really not worth the time and effort required to change their mind, because theres always something else, and the argument goes on and on. Even if you do convince someone is it really worth it?

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

I care. The environment is worth the trouble. The more people are informed, the better.

 

[Finch]

i dont think schottys a more threat to the enviorment if he doesnt beleive in global warming than if he did. He might make more enviormentaly concensious desisions but we doont know if he doent already do that so dont make assuptions based on his veiw of global warming

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

it's not just him. Besides the other people who have showed skeptisism (sp?), I bet some just read and don't post anything... and besides, hopefully they have enough morals so that they won't go around repeating stuff like it's only 5-10 years or that about heat islands, etc. and then bring other people into the dark side.

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]Washington, 2050

The Conservetive Sebate rejected presedent

's nomanee for the supreme court, luis, because of remarks made during his career and  his history of CONSISTANTLY librily ruling on the enviorment. The senates conclusion that he was too devisive ahd had a history of making comments that implies on how he would rule as a judge. Instead, Ann Coulter was aproved as a down to- earth person with accpetable morals, who compained sucessfuly for senate in earlier years, appealing to voters in texas for her hard-line approach to the few remaining liberals by simply and literaly steamrolling them over

 

[aprilh]

Scotty..your side is just so off the hook it's not funny.  Your side is anti-science. Your side is anti-environment. Your side is pro-ugly-townhouse development. Your side is pro-gas guzzling SUV. Your side is pro-big business.

Why won't you just admit you're a conservative, and and get on with your life?  You're a rabid environmentalist like I'm a rabid anti-Semite.

 

[Finch]

look a this. iisk tisk what a shame. ingroup-out group bias run amouk. Such a big difference is not a difference at all. Let me talk to scott, iff he'll let me

 

[Gawd_oOo]

Quote[/b] ]can I ask originally where you got your graphs from? They're hosted by image shack. Very suspicious if you ask me.

Sure. Hotlinking direct ti images is not nice to servers, so I don't do it. But I'm sure I can find the link again.

http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html

 

[Gawd_oOo]

Quote[/b] ]Besides the other people who have showed skeptisism (sp?),

Don't take my post the wrong way. I am in the middle on this issue. Just looked like scotty was losing, thaught he needed some data to help him out.

 

[RamPuppy]

How many times do we mods have to step in and tell you people to lay off the personal attacks? I swear, there are a few of you, that I am just about ready to hit with the axe and be done with! you are involved in every single topic that turns sour.

If you all want to continue this discussion, back off the inferences that one side or the other is an idiot because of their beliefs or politics. Stop generalizing, and lumping every member of a group or belief into the category of 'off the hook' and so on. I mean it. I am sick of it. Be civil, or find a new place to post.

 

[Jason_In_CO]

I think even more troubling than global warming or cooling is the earth's human population.  Through the marvels of modern medicine we've all but eliminated any competition to the human race.  As grousome as it may sound, things like influenza, small pox, the plague etc. were very effective natural population controls, not to mention an effective means of natural selection insuring a stronger species in the long run.  We now have a medical "fix" for almost everything, causing whatever defective gene that made a certain individual seceptable to a myriad of ills to be passed on from generation to generation.  Don't get me wrong, medicine is a fantastic thing especially when it's a relative or close freind whos life is saved by it, but there is a downside to it, and that is the rapid explosion of human population which will eventually reach an unsustainable level on this planet.  Ahh, but nature usually has a way of balancing things out, and when that next big meteor stikes and cripples half of the worlds infrastructure and food producing capabillities, a billion people will starve to death.  (You have to love nature)

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]Don't take my post the wrong way. I am in the middle on this issue.

don't take my comment the wrong way (yes I know how it sounded... sorry). it's good to be skeptical.

ok... the debate is kind of confusing, but there was a pannel made to settle it and:

Quote[/b] ]In the opinion of the panel, the warming trend in global-mean surface temperature observations during the past 20 years is undoubtedly real and is substantially greater than the average rate of warming during the twentieth century. The disparity between surface and upper air trends in no way invalidates the conclusion that surface temperature has been rising. The recent corrections in the MSU processing algorithms (referred to above) bring the global temperature trend derived from the satellite data into slightly closer alignment with surface temperature trends, but a substantial disparity remains. The various kinds of evidence examined by the panel suggest that the troposphere actually may have warmed much less rapidly than the surface from 1979 into the late 1990s, due both to natural causes (e.g., the sequence of volcanic eruptions that occurred within this particular 20-year period) and human activities (e.g., the cooling of the upper part of the troposphere resulting from ozone depletion in the stratosphere). Regardless of whether the disparity is real, the panel cautions that temperature trends based on data for such short periods of record, with arbitrary start and end points, are not necessarily indicative of the long-term behavior of the climate system.

http://www.nap.edu/books/0309068916/html (second page of the summary)
http://www4.nationalacademies.org/news.ns....ocument -another link
and just in case someone wants to read more about global warming...
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
(ha! yeah right...)

 

[Finch]

Quote[/b] ]you all want to continue this discussion, back off the inferences that one side or the other is an idiot because of their beliefs or politics. Stop generalizing, and lumping every member of a group or belief into the category of 'off the hook' and so on. I mean it. I am sick of it. Be civil, or find a new place to post.

Yah that really upset me here. Implying others the other side is anything is wrong. Rampuppy, that is almost a exact defenition of ingroup-ougroup bias and i agree it needs to stop.

No one should feel alienated or attatked because of their beleifs of because of what side their on.

 

[BigCarnivourKid]

Quote[/b] (Jason_In_CO @ May 20 2005,5:30)]......Ahh, but nature usually has a way of balancing things out, and when that next big meteor stikes and cripples half of the worlds infrastructure and food producing capabillities, a billion people will starve to death. (You have to love nature)

I think our "balancing out" will come from within rather than without. People aren't ment to be jammed together this close. I think we are seeing signs of it already. People getting touchy about differences of opinion, religion, origin, etc. I am refering to international as well as national and maybe some forum interactions. Every where we turn there is somebody there. Places to be alone, relax, think, unwind and get away from lifes troubles are getting fewer and fewer and we are getting on each others nerves because of this. People need elbow room to grow. Just like plants and animals (and most people fit into one category or the other). I think eventually mankind is heading for a mental break down. That's when we will "balance" ourselves...right out of existence.

 

[Gawd_oOo]

Quote[/b] ]about heat islands... who the hell do you think scientists are? kids?

Hehe. Ya and the world is flat too.. scientists aren't always right. modern scientists may be doing better, then in the past. But I think it was the page I linked to maybe it was another site I was reading mentioned that location that has been recording temperatures for the longest span of time is located in downtown london.
Also that many monitoring stations in the former USSR have been abandoned, and by the looks of the graph you posted it, wasn't adjusted to reflect the loss of those stations. I saw a few graphs that removed all data ever collected from those stations, and the increase wasn't as drastic as in your graph. There was still an increase tho.

Quote[/b] ]don't take my comment the wrong way (yes I know how it sounded... sorry).

No apology needed.

And to Ram

Quote[/b] ]I swear, there are a few of you, that I am just about ready to hit with the axe and be done with! you are involved in every single topic that turns sour.

Now I don't really know if this was pointed at me at all.. I have been in a few debates.. But have never went the route of personal insults.. I do however believe that this is something better dealt with in private messages or by being more specific as to which users you are talking to. Since there are guilty and non-guilty parties involved in the thread. I don't think you want to scare off the people that are involved in a debate but keeping it civil, or maybe you do...

No soup for you...

 

[RamPuppy]

GAwd_o0o,

being a relative newbie here, your probalby not aware of the two proverbial tools of mod and adminship... they are "The Mallet" used for public thumping, and "The Axe - used for silencing those who know better, i.e. ending their presence in these forums."

I appreciate how you think the situation SHOULD be handled, and thank you for your imput. However, your approach is about 2 or 3 warnings ago for these people, how many threads have we shut down lately because of this? Your opinion of how I should handle it assumes you are aware of all the facts, and your probably not. (no offense intended, it's just the way it is.)  If I scared a couple of people away from this thread, so be it, I hope I scared the right ones.

Edit: Oh, and did you insult anyone or not 'play nicely' in this thread? if not, then you have no worries.

 

[TheAlphaWolf]

Quote[/b] ]I think we are seeing signs of it already.  People getting touchy about differences of opinion, religion, origin, etc.

I agree that humanity's doom comes because of ourselves but we've been seeing that since LONG ago. since pre-humans weren't even humans yet.

Quote[/b] ]Hehe. Ya and the world is flat too.. scientists aren't always right. modern scientists may be doing better, then in the past

well, one thing is not having evidence and  being pressured to think otherwise, and another is for the vast majority of scientists to ignore heat islands.

Quote[/b] ]Also that many monitoring stations in the former USSR have been abandoned, and by the looks of the graph you posted it, wasn't adjusted to reflect the loss of those stations. I saw a few graphs that removed all data ever collected from those stations, and the increase wasn't as drastic as in your graph. There was still an increase tho.

why would you want to remove that data? were there any flaws? I don't see what's wrong with data that was collected before. What does seem to be wrong is taking it out since that's reducing the amount of data and therefore there is more room for it to be wrong.