So much for Global warming

[sgreger1]

If you go by the official AGW theory, global warming can be expected to bring extremes in both directions. At the UN and elsewhere they claim that hurricane katrina, the various tsunami's, Haiti, and now the snow on our east coast is all because of global warming. Isn't it convenient to be able to blame any natural disaster on something, and say the only way to fix it is with money? Or like how Hugo Chavez in Venezuela is blaming global warming (caused by the evil US) for their shortage of food and their energy crisis?


All I know is that scientists are calling for the IPPC's chairman to step down after all the bad publicity they have gotten over the last month, where it has been proven at least twice that they used flat out fake, non peer-reviewed data. They even tried to spin it off as a typo early on but the damage is done and the facts are out.

The weather changes, you driving a prius will not change that. Tax the big polluters and use the money to invest in green energy. End of story.

And the reason why there aren't a lot of salt and snow trucks is because a lot of them are broken. Not governments fault, it's hard to keep heavy equipment running in that part of the country.

[Christi]

They don't even use salt here...they have sand trucks and that only works to an extent. If they would use them at all it would help.

[sgreger1]

They don't even use salt here...they have sand trucks and that only works to an extent. If they would use them at all it would help.

??? No salt? Lol Texas has lots of sand I guess so maybe it make sense, but I don't see how that would really help the problem at all.

Meanwhile, here in California, it looks like a Beach Boys album cover. Enjoy

[Christi]

The theory is the sand helps traction. IDK, I lived in IL for 12 years and they used salt.

[sgreger1]

The theory is the sand helps traction. IDK, I lived in IL for 12 years and they used salt.

I'm pretty sure they don't use salt in Texas because salt is a communist plan to take over the roads during times of extreme weather. Now sand? Well, sand is that John Wayne shit. Can't go wrong.

[Mordred]

Global warming is just "warming" It's extreme temperatures, hot or cold.

Just sayin.

+1

It's called Global warming. Artic ice melting has a way of fraking with the jet stream which means we can still have big snow storms.

Christi, If it makes you feel any better I'll put in an order for twice as many hot record temperature days.

Wrong on two counts:

1) There is no such thing as a "global temperature". Seriously. How would you calculate it? It's just a weighted average and God knows how to do that. We certainly don't. Is the temperature reading from Vladivostok more relevant than the one from Chicago for global temps? If so, how? It's a mess.

2) A warmer gobal climate would probably be less turbulent.

I'll say it again, just in case people missed it: We have NO IDEA what the global temperatures were like 200 years ago, let alone a thousand, ten thousand or more.

What we have is somewhat accurate readings from some regions dating back perhaps 100 years. On a scale of hundreds of thousands of years, that means nothing.

Prior to that, all we have is Mann and Brifa looking at tree rings and GUESSING what the temps were like. Tree rings. It's a shitty proxy if I've ever seen one. For one, tree growth doesn't directly correlate with temperature and for another, dendrochronology hasn't been around long enough to actually observe tree growth of a single tree for, say 100 years. So they have NOTHING.

Add to that the fact that for some of their studies, they went out and checked 10 or so trees in a remote area, then discarded it because it showed no trend, picked another 10 trees from a different area and voilà, warming.

Summer heatwave? It's global warming. Harsh winter? It's global warming. The cat pissed on your carpet? Gotta be global warming, right?

[sgreger1]

Plus they pick and choose what weather stations to use for data. Like lets say if Canada had 150 weather measuring stations, they would choose the hottest one closest to a city and discard the data from the rest by turning them off. Regardless of what is actually happening, what we do know is that they are trying to fluf the numbers to make it fit with their agenda.

What could have been good solid science is being discredited beyond the point of return by the corrupt IPCC, who now has scientists calling for the chairman's resignation since he is giving the place a bad name. It's scandal after scandal. They try to spin it like it's not a scandal but then it turns out that the skeptics were right, and that they just used data from some source that didn't really do much data collecting at all and just published an opinion based on little research. In the end the truth will come out as it always does.

[justintempler]

Wrong on two counts:......

Another armchair "expert" :roll:

Take it up with the scientists.

Educate yourself on proxies.

You can start here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html

NOAA Paleoclimatology is a branch of NOAA's National Climatic Data Center. Paleo data come from natural sources such as tree rings, ice cores, corals, and ocean and lake sediments-- and extend the archive of weather and climate back hundreds to millions of years. NOAA Paleo provides data and information scientists need to understand natural climate variability and future climate change. We also operate the World Data Center for Paleoclimatology which distributes data contributed by scientists around the world.

[outsidelinebacker20]

It does not matter where the data comes from if they will not compile it with any integrity. Science can not exist in the presence of an agenda.

Kevin

[RRK]

Kevin

Hey, cool name. I switched between outside linebacker and defensive end depending on which defense we were running back in high school. Defense rules and those positions are so fun.

Ok, back to the topic at hand.

[Bigblue1]

It does not matter where the data comes from if they will not compile it with any integrity. Science can not exist in the presence of an agenda.

Kevin

+1

[Bigblue1]

Plus they pick and choose what weather stations to use for data. Like lets say if Canada had 150 weather measuring stations, they would choose the hottest one closest to a city and discard the data from the rest by turning them off. Regardless of what is actually happening, what we do know is that they are trying to fluf the numbers to make it fit with their agenda.

What could have been good solid science is being discredited beyond the point of return by the corrupt IPCC, who now has scientists calling for the chairman's resignation since he is giving the place a bad name. It's scandal after scandal. They try to spin it like it's not a scandal but then it turns out that the skeptics were right, and that they just used data from some source that didn't really do much data collecting at all and just published an opinion based on little research. In the end the truth will come out as it always does.

+1 as well

[Mordred]

Another armchair "expert" :roll:

Take it up with the scientists.

Well, we're all "armchair" in every field except our own. This goes for politicians too. It's not like Obama has a degree in climatology either.

I believe I have devoted quite a sizable amount of time to educating myself on the subject. Enough at least to be able to understand that there is way too much guesswork in these reconstructions for me to accept them as a basis for far-reaching societal changes.

For instance:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/327/5967/860

So, according to team from the university of Iowa, sea levels were higher 81.000 years ago than they are today, thus indicating more arctic/glacier melting, despite much lower Co2.

Despite unheard-of amounts spent on research in the field, the picture is extremely muddy.

Edit: Just so we don't misunderstand each other here, I'm not questioning the validity of climatology or the possibility of global warming. I'm just of the opinion that the field is far too young to be able to make predictions with sufficient accuracy.

In that, it's not like creationist vs evolution. Creationists deny the existence of evolution. My position is more akin to somebody saying: "Ok, evolution is real enough, but I don't believe we know enough to be able to predict what the next step in the evolution of a given species will be.".

[Snusdog]

Personally, I don’t buy the politicized aspects of the issue. However, I do think that taking care of our environment is a good idea as is being responsible in terms of both our production and consumption.

I think one of the bad side effects of this debate is that the real goals/needs get lost in the agenda. I don’t know of anyone (though I sure there is some nut ball out there) who says lets trash the planet.

To me we don’t need a lot of debate or data simply to know that it is a good idea:

Not to junk the air, water, or soil
Reforest
Develop with a sense of responsibility to the future
Produce and consume with a sense of responsibility to the future
Don’t litter

It’s when we politicize the issue that otherwise common goals become polarized, extreme, and realistically undoable— the result is that the real goals are lost

One last point- I know that the devil is in the details and that much of the challenge is how to implement our goals and how to strike a balance between our needs and responsibilities. Such however underscores the vital importance of keeping our big picture guiding goals clearly before us (don’t trash the planet). It also underscores the tragedy and the serious ramifications of any situation in which those goals have become so polarized and extreme that we wind up debating over parodies of the need with no possibility of an actual working solution.

And that my friend is just what happened on this thread. We debated an agenda and lost sight of the issue- don't trash the planet.

[justintempler]

For instance:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten...t/327/5967/860

So, according to team from the university of Iowa, sea levels were higher 81.000 years ago than they are today, thus indicating more arctic/glacier melting, despite much lower Co2.

With that statement you just proved to me you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

"despite much lower Co2."

1. The abstract doesn't say what the CO2 level was 81,000 years ago. How did you jump to the conclusion that the level of CO2 was much lower?

2. CO2 is only one of many forcings that affect climate. So even if CO2 levels where virtually non-exisistent 81,000 years ago that ignores all the other greenhouse gases, water vapor, methane, nitrous oxide, ozone, chlorofluorocarbons. What about solar forcing 81,000 years ago?

Keep studying... :roll: