Global warming, global cooling

Status
Not open for further replies.
jimpeel said:
Look up the search you did yesterday and see what you get. Oh, yeah, the search results are gone. There is no way to store a Google search. You just have to remember what criteria you entered last time.
Click to expand...

wrong.
There are things called shortcuts, and 'browser history'.

did a search yesterday checking some history/price... of nickel.
 
Americans regaining their sanity

It looks like the sanity is returning the more people learn the facts about global warming.

You can fool all of the people some of the time; and you can fool some of the people all of the time; and then there are the rest of us.

Report: 44 Percent of Voters Blame Planetary Trends for Global Warming
A Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds the percentage of Americans who blame human activity for global warming is shrinking.

FOXNews.com

Monday, January 19, 2009

The percentage of Americans who think global warming is just another planetary trend has increased, though Democrats and more likely than Republicans to blame human activity for environmental change a new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds.

Forty-four percent of voters polled said global warming is the result of long-term planetary trends, according to the survey. In 2006, 35 percent agreed.

The percentage of voters who blame global warming on human activity fell to 41 percent from 46 percent. Seven percent blame other reasons and 9 percent were unsure, the survey found.

Democrats were more likely to blame human activity than Republicans with Democrats polling at 59 percent and Republicans at 21 percent.

Republicans were more likely to blame planetary trends for global warming. Two-thirds of Republicans and 23 percent of Democrats polled said planetary trends cause global warming.

Most voters said global warming was a problem. Sixty-four percent said it was somewhat serious and 41 percent said it was very serious. (I wonder if the poll mentioned the fact that there has been no global warming for the past ten years or that temperatures have been decresasing for the past six years. -- j)

The survey also showed that 46 percent of voters polled said they believe a conflict exists between economic growth and environmental protection while 32 percent saw no conflict and 22 percent were not sure.

Click here to read more on this Rasmussen Reports survey.
Click to expand...
 
Looks like sanity is increasin the more scientists examine the facts.

Lobbyists can fool a lot of the people all of the time but then other people look at the facts.

CHICAGO, Jan. 19 (UPI) -- A wide range of Earth scientists say humans contribute significantly to global warming, suggests a poll conducted by the University of Illinois at Chicago.

The poll should dispel doubts by some that a consensus about global warming exists among scientists, said Peter Doran, a University of Illinois professor who conducted the poll with students last year.

The 3,146 Earth scientists interviewed around the world overwhelmingly agreed that global temperatures have risen in the last 200-plus years and human activity is a significant factor, Doran said in a statement released Monday.

The scientists, chosen from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments, were asked two questions via e-mail: if mean global temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and if human activity has been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures.

About 90 percent of those polled agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second question, Doran said.
Click to expand...

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2009/01/19/Scientists_say_global_warming_real/UPI-73711232403834/
 
Of course ... UPI (United Press International) is a raw font of journalistic integrity .... as opposed to a specialized scientific journal.

The 3,146 Earth scientists ...
...chosen from the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments
Click to expand...

Out of how many, and who did the choosing?


Lemme make this clear for those who still aren't understanding .... your weather man can't get more than 50% accuracy with all the tools network money can buy. The can't forecast a hurricane's path more than hours in advance with any real accuracy ... with billions of dollars of sonar bouys, topographical maps (accurate to tenths of an inch) satelites, computers and decades of accurate historical records. Last month, our local weather centre (gov't run) blew the forcast by nearly 15°C (forecast 24 hours earlier called for +10°C, we got -4°C) with less than a day to go.

Why? because they still haven't got more than 50% of the weather model right yet, even with the best supercomputers going. Hell, it's not that long ago that they discovered super hot plasma pockets in our upper atmosphere that noone knew about before. We've hit record low sunspot activity this year ...Why? they don't know. We're facing a magnetic reversal ... why? They don't know that either. There are localized regions all over the planet where the magnetic field is either backwards, doubled, or non-existant ... and they don't know why. Predictions on the ozone holes (how long have they known about them?) are regularly out by factors of magnitude. Data collection? Regularly shown faulty. Snow accumulation? Record accumulations when they predicted glacial recession. Not to mention that their "history" is all based on the assumption that their original premise (ice cores) are accurate ... which is still open to discussion.


Does man modify his environment? Yep, sure he does. Does the environment modify itself? yep. Can these clowns tell the difference? Not likely.
 
One is a poll directed at earth scientists and one is a petition signed by many people who's field of work is not related to the subjectand where there is no choice of answers.

Jim, you realize these two thing are not even slightly comparable now right?
 
spike said:
One is a poll directed at earth scientists and one is a petition signed by many people who's field of work is not related to the subjectand where there is no choice of answers.

Jim, you realize these two thing are not even slightly comparable now right?
Click to expand...

Did you miss the part about 9,021 PhDs?

If you had but taken the time to read THIS PAGE you would have found this:

Outlined below are the numbers of Petition Project signatories, subdivided by educational specialties. These have been combined, as indicated, into seven categories.

1. Atmospheric, environmental, and Earth sciences includes 3,697 (Which is, if my math is correct, more than 3,146 -- j) scientists trained in specialties directly related to the physical environment of the Earth and the past and current phenomena that affect that environment.

2. Computer and mathematical sciences includes 903 scientists trained in computer and mathematical methods. Since the human-caused global warming hypothesis rests entirely upon mathematical computer projections and not upon experimental observations, these sciences are especially important in evaluating this hypothesis.

3. Physics and aerospace sciences include 5,691 scientists trained in the fundamental physical and molecular properties of gases, liquids, and solids, which are essential to understanding the physical properties of the atmosphere and Earth.

4. Chemistry includes 4,796 scientists trained in the molecular interactions and behaviors of the substances of which the atmosphere and Earth are composed.

5. Biology and agriculture includes 2,924 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of living things on the Earth.

6. Medicine includes 3,069 scientists trained in the functional and environmental requirements of human beings on the Earth.

7. Engineering and general science includes 9,992 scientists trained primarily in the many engineering specialties required to maintain modern civilization and the prosperity required for all human actions, including environmental programs.
Click to expand...

They even broke it down by specialty; but you would already know that if you had but visited the page.

The following outline gives a more detailed analysis of the signers' educations.

Atmosphere, Earth, & Environment (3,697)

1. Atmosphere (578)

I) Atmospheric Science (114)
II) Climatology (40)
III) Meteorology (341 )
IV) Astronomy (58)
V) Astrophysics (25)

2. Earth (2,148)

I) Earth Science (107)
II) Geochemistry (62)
III) Geology (1,601)
IV) Geophysics (334)
V) Geoscience (23)
VI) Hydrology (21)

3. Environment (971)

I) Environmental Engineering (473)
II) Environmental Science (256)
III) Forestry (156)
IV) Oceanography (86)

Computers & Math (903)

1. Computer Science (217)

2. Math (686)

I) Mathematics (575)
II) Statistics (111)

Physics & Aerospace (5,691)

1. Physics (5,106)

I) Physics (2,310)
II) Nuclear Engineering (215)
III) Mechanical Engineering (2,581)

2. Aerospace (585)

I) Aerospace Engineering (585)

Chemistry (4,796)

1. Chemistry ( 3,156)

2. Chemical Engineering (1,640)

Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,924)

1. Biochemistry (768)

I) Biochemistry (703)
II) Biophysics (65)

2. Biology (1,365)

I) Biology (985)
II) Ecology (72)
III) Entomology (57)
IV) Zoology (145)
V) Animal Science (106)

3. Agriculture (791)

I) Agricultural Science (314)
II) Agricultural Engineering (111)
III) Plant Science (292)
IV) Food Science (74)

Medicine (3,069)

1. Medical Science (726)

2. Medicine (2,343)

General Engineering & General Science (9,992)

1. General Engineering (9,751)

I) Engineering (7,289)
II) Electrical Engineering (2,075)
III) Metallurgy (387)

2. General Science (241)
Click to expand...
 
Damn Jim, this is not that hard.

There is absolutely zero equivalence between a poll of Earth Scientists where they can answer one way or the other and a petition where you can only answer one way. None. Nada.

There is no way to compare these two things logically. None.

Now if you presented the petition to thousands of earth scientists and recorded how many wanted to sign it and how many didn't you would be closer.....because that would be more like a poll.

As it sits though there is no rational way that you can compare such completely dissimilar things and come away with anything relevant. None.

Understand?
 
Environmental guru calls carbon offsets a scam.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...nce-to-save-mankind.html?full=true&print=true

One last chance to save mankind

With his 90th birthday in July, a trip into space scheduled for later in the year and a new book out next month, 2009 promises to be an exciting time for James Lovelock. But the originator of the Gaia theory, which describes Earth as a self-regulating planet, has a stark view of the future of humanity. He tells Gaia Vince we have one last chance to save ourselves - and it has nothing to do with nuclear power

Your work on atmospheric chlorofluorocarbons led eventually to a global CFC ban that saved us from ozone-layer depletion. Do we have time to do a similar thing with carbon emissions to save ourselves from climate change?

Not a hope in hell. Most of the "green" stuff is verging on a gigantic scam. Carbon trading, with its huge government subsidies, is just what finance and industry wanted. It's not going to do a damn thing about climate change, but it'll make a lot of money for a lot of people and postpone the moment of reckoning. I am not against renewable energy, but to spoil all the decent countryside in the UK with wind farms is driving me mad. It's absolutely unnecessary, and it takes 2500 square kilometres to produce a gigawatt - that's an awful lot of countryside.

What about work to sequester carbon dioxide?

That is a waste of time. It's a crazy idea - and dangerous. It would take so long and use so much energy that it will not be done.

Do you still advocate nuclear power as a solution to climate change?

It is a way for the UK to solve its energy problems, but it is not a global cure for climate change. It is too late for emissions reduction measures.

So are we doomed?

There is one way we could save ourselves and that is through the massive burial of charcoal. It would mean farmers turning all their agricultural waste - which contains carbon that the plants have spent the summer sequestering - into non-biodegradable charcoal, and burying it in the soil. Then you can start shifting really hefty quantities of carbon out of the system and pull the CO2 down quite fast.

Would it make enough of a difference?

Yes. The biosphere pumps out 550 gigatonnes of carbon yearly; we put in only 30 gigatonnes. Ninety-nine per cent of the carbon that is fixed by plants is released back into the atmosphere within a year or so by consumers like bacteria, nematodes and worms. What we can do is cheat those consumers by getting farmers to burn their crop waste at very low oxygen levels to turn it into charcoal, which the farmer then ploughs into the field. A little CO2 is released but the bulk of it gets converted to carbon. You get a few per cent of biofuel as a by-product of the combustion process, which the farmer can sell. This scheme would need no subsidy: the farmer would make a profit. This is the one thing we can do that will make a difference, but I bet they won't do it.

Do you think we will survive?

I'm an optimistic pessimist. I think it's wrong to assume we'll survive 2 °C of warming: there are already too many people on Earth. At 4 °C we could not survive with even one-tenth of our current population. The reason is we would not find enough food, unless we synthesised it. Because of this, the cull during this century is going to be huge, up to 90 per cent. (It is proven that food production increases with temperature rise and that more areas, previously unable to produce food, become productive. Of course, this silly fuck will be just so much carbon in the ground by the time his predictions fail to materialize. -- j) The number of people remaining at the end of the century will probably be a billion or less. It has happened before: between the ice ages there were bottlenecks when there were only 2000 people left. It's happening again.

I don't think humans react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up. Kyoto was 11 years ago. Virtually nothing's been done except endless talk and meetings. I don't think we can react fast enough or are clever enough to handle what's coming up

It's a depressing outlook.

Not necessarily. I don't think 9 billion is better than 1 billion. I see humans as rather like the first photosynthesisers, which when they first appeared on the planet caused enormous damage by releasing oxygen - a nasty, poisonous gas. (Well that goes against everything ever discovered about oxygen. And just how did we, in those primitive days, release this "poison? -- ) It took a long time, but it turned out in the end to be of enormous benefit. I look on humans in much the same light. For the first time in its 3.5 billion years of existence, the planet has an intelligent, communicating species that can consider the whole system and even do things about it. They are not yet bright enough, they have still to evolve quite a way, but they could become a very positive contributor to planetary welfare.

How much biodiversity will be left after this climatic apocalypse?

We have the example of the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum event 55 million years ago. About the same amount of CO2 was put into the atmosphere as we are putting in and temperatures rocketed by about 5 °C over about 20,000 years. The world became largely desert. The polar regions were tropical and most life on the planet had the time to move north and survive. When the planet cooled they moved back again. So there doesn't have to be a massive extinction. It's already moving: if you live in the countryside as I do you can see the changes, even in the UK.

If you were younger, would you be fearful?

No, I have been through this kind of emotional thing before. It reminds me of when I was 19 and the second world war broke out. We were very frightened but almost everyone was so much happier. We're much better equipped to deal with that kind of thing than long periods of peace. It's not all bad when things get rough. I'll be 90 in July, I'm a lot closer to death than you, but I'm not worried. I'm looking forward to being 100.

Are you looking forward to your trip into space this year?

Very much. I've got my camera ready!

Do you have to do any special training?

I have to go in the centrifuge to see if I can stand the g-forces. I don't anticipate a problem because I spent a lot of my scientific life on ships out on rough oceans and I have never been even slightly seasick so I don't think I'm likely to be space sick. They gave me an expensive thorium-201 heart test and then put me on a bicycle. My heart was performing like an average 20 year old, they said.

I bet your wife is nervous.

No, she's cheering me on. And it's not because I'm heavily insured, because I'm not.

Profile

James Lovelock is a British chemist, inventor and environmentalist. He is best known for formulating the controversial Gaia hypothesis in the 1970s, which states that organisms interact with and regulate Earth's surface and atmosphere. Later this year he will travel to space as Richard Branson's guest aboard Virgin Galactic's SpaceShipTwo. His latest book, The Vanishing Face of Gaia, is published by Basic Books in February.
Issue 2692 of New Scientist magazine
Click to expand...
 
Read what we were just talking about.

We were having a discussion and I guess instead of admitting you were wrong to be making the comparison you were trying to make you've decided to switch gears and suddenly post the opnions of John Lovelock. While of course bolding the parts you like as if they prove something for you and then calling him a "silly fuck" when he says something you don't like.
 
Here we go again.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,485048,00.html

0_61_volcano_redoubt_boom.jpg


Rumbling Alaska Volcano Threatens Anchorage

Friday, January 30, 2009

ANCHORAGE, Alaska — Mount Redoubt continues to rumble and simmer, prompting geologists to say this Alaska volcano could erupt "perhaps within hours to days."

Scientists from the Alaska Volcano Observatory have been monitoring activity round-the-clock since the weekend.

If Mount Redoubt does erupt, it would be the first time this occurred in nearly 20 years. And if won't likely be pretty.

History shows that volcanoes in Alaska, including Redoubt, typically erupt explosively, shooting ash almost eight miles high.

This differs from volcanoes in Hawaii, which usually have slow rolling lava ooze out.

The difference is gas trying to escape gets blocked, possibly by a lava dome or a viscous magma that increases the power from beneath, said observatory geologist Jennifer Adleman.

"Its pressure keeps building and building...," she said.

Depending on the winds, the ash plume could be pushed straight at Anchorage, the state's largest city. This has prompted state and city officials to post bulletins on how to deal with the ash.

Tips include:

— Stay inside as much as possible.

— Wear a mask or wet bandanna if going outside.

— Those who wear contacts should consider wearing goggles.

According to the U.S. Geological Survey, volcanic ash features small, jagged pieces of rock and glass.

The last time this 10,197-foot peak blew was during a five-month stretch starting in December, 1989. It disrupted international air traffic and placed a layer of volcanic dust throughout the Anchorage area.

Concerns over an eruption have state and city officials issuing warnings so area residents can deal with an ash storm.

The mountain is about 100 miles southwest of Anchorage.
Click to expand...
 
It seems that the founder of the Weather Channel is still not to happy with Al Gore's fraud.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/200...-founder-blasts-gore-global-warming-campaign/

Weather Channel Founder Blasts Gore Over Global Warming Campaign
John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, writes on his station's Web site that Al Gore is ignoring the faulty research behind global warming.

FOXNews.com

Thursday, January 29, 2009

The founder of the Weather Channel is ridiculing Al Gore over his calls for action on global climate change, saying in a column that global warming is a "hoax" and "bad science."

John Coleman, now a weatherman at San Diego's KUSI, wrote on his station's Web site Wednesday that Gore refuses to acknowledge the faulty research on which the idea of global warming is based.

Coleman's lengthy scolding came as the former vice president and Nobel Peace Prize winner addressed the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and urged lawmakers to pass a bill that would put caps on heat-trapping gases and take the lead on a global climate treaty.

Coleman wrote that the Environmental Protection Agency is "on the verge" of naming CO2 (carbon dioxide) as a pollutant, and that seemingly all of Washington is on board with such CO2 silliness."

"I am totally convinced there is no scientific basis for any of it," Coleman wrote, describing the decades-old theory that increasing the amount of carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere leads to global warming.

"Global Warming. It is the hoax. It is bad science. It is a high jacking (sic) of public policy. It is no joke. It is the greatest scam in history," Coleman wrote.


Click here to read about Gore's comments on Capitol Hill.

Click here to read Coleman's column.
Click to expand...
 
RECENT SCIENTIFIC STUDIES demonstrate the increasing urgency to reduce carbon emissions, former Vice President Al Gore told a US Senate committee Wednesday, but have no fear, it can be done in a way that makes America richer and safer, apparently.

Gore was invited to give a hysterical, melodramatic speech at Congress, accompanied by his usual box of slides and video clips of impending planetary doom, to promote President Barack Obama's economic stimulus package, which earmarks billions of dollars for renewable energy and more eco friendly infrastructure and transportation.

Gore, who was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for scaring the bejesus out of people with his film on humanity's imminent destruction due to global warming, told Congress it had to do three things, or face the very real danger of another one of his films.

The first was to pass the stimulus plan, with all its clean energy goodness, the second was to pass a law limiting Carbon emissions and taxing them and the third was to bully all other world nations to agree to binding reductions by the end of 2009.

"The scientists are practically screaming from the rooftops. This is a planetary emergency. It's outside the scale we're used to dealing with," ManBearPig, er, Gore shrieked at senators. He steadied himself before adding that the climate which made human civilisation possible was at serious risk and that burning more fossil fuels with everyday 'devil may care' arrogance would have serious impact on the Earth's climate for a long, long time.

Gore quoted the latest hyped-up eco report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration scientist Susan Solomon, who reckons the planet's excess heat is, for now, being absorbed by oceanic waters, but that eventually, all that carbon dioxide and heat would be regurgitated in a process which could last a thousand years.

Solomon's report warns if a drastic drop in emissions doesn't happen very, very soon, a huge and permanent dust-bowl could form over the Southwest USA and across the Mediterranean as average global temperatures shoots up an estimated 12 degrees Centigrade.

Gore told grumbling senators there was no reason to fear humanity's inevitable doom and that the choice between "our planet and our way of life" was a false one. "The solutions to the climate crisis are the very same solutions that will address our economic and national security crises as well," proclaimed Gore who claimed working towards renewable energy would create loads of jobs and help the US cut ties with nasty, oil-hoarding regimes.

After Gore's passionate plea, the House of Representatives passed the Obama stimulus bill 244-188, with reps trying to get as far away from ManBearPig as quickly as possible. The bill now goes to the Senate. µ
Click to expand...

Source
 
A DEPRESSING new scientific study says climate change is almost certainly irreversible and that as carbon dioxide emissions increase, long-term environmental disruption will ensue.

doomedSusan Solomon, author of the paper to be published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, reckons whatever we do now, the damage that has already been caused will continue anyway.

It would be nice to write Solomon off as slightly less melodramatic version of Al Gore, but sadly, it turns out she's one of the world's top climate scientists, working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

Talking to NPR, Solomon noted how most people simply imagined things would get back to normal within a hundred years or so if the human race stopped sullying up the planet with Co2. But she warned "What we're showing here is that's not right. It's essentially an irreversible change that will last for more than a thousand years".

The basis for this pessimistic outlook lies at the bottom of the ocean... literally. Solomon reckons the planet's excess heat is being absorbed by oceanic waters, for now, but that eventually, all that carbon dioxide and heat will be regurgitated in a process lasting hundreds of years.

Solomon's study takes an acute look at how all this will affect sea level rise and drought in the long-term, and its not looking pretty, kids.

The report warns that if we carry on as if it's all 'business as usual', even for just a few more decades, a huge and permanent dust-bowl could form over the Southwest USA and all across the Mediterranean. And, no, dust doesn't taste good in a pita.

As tempting as it may be to raise our hands and declare it all a lost cause, Solomon says it is no time to do any such thing. She added "I guess if it's irreversible, to me it seems all the more reason you might want to do something about it". µ
Click to expand...

same source as the above
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top