Global Warming: Man made or Nature's Cycle
- Thread starter bizousoft
- Start date
I'm pretty sure man is the cause, but the reason isn't as simple as 'we're puttin more CO2 in the air" or anything so Algorish.
Mankind is too fuckin' big. That's the real reason.
No respectable scientists anywhere doubt that we've far exceeded the carrying capacity of planet earth. AGW is just the first of many shitstorms we are creating for ourselves from being this big.
We hurt the natural balance in many ways; mostly by killing the other living things on the planet that offset warming. Too much asphalt is one reason; it destroys the Earth's natural AC in urban areas. But I'll give you a better, more believable example:
A. We are eating too many fish.
B. Those meals of ours would have eaten things below them on the food chain.
C. Those less numerous ocean critters, like plankton and diatoms, would have resulted in a lighter-colored ocean.
D. Because the ocean accounts for the majority of groundcover on earth, the earth is now darker-colored and reflects less light.
E. More light NOT reflected away is turned into heat. Voila.
Shit like this is happening all over the planet. In our dirt, in our upper atmostphere, all of it. And yes, more carbon from factories and from more LIVESTOCK needed to feed us is certainly measurable too. We're changing too much stuff all at once.
Shit adds up! :angryfire:
For those of you who don't see how colder winters can be caused by global warming; read this short article: Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News
It basically shows how the storms will naturally go further south in hotter weather... The overall surface average has without a doubt gone up throughout it.
Oh yeah, and for Rexabit's sad argument that global warming would save lives because "more people die from cold deaths each year than they do from heat deaths" -
Remember that a 1 degree Celsius increase in the global temperature won't be noticed by anyone but scientists... As they count the increased number of storms that kill far, far more people than both heat and cold do.
They certianly did in 2010. Just ask anyone in Russia or Pakistan. Even along the East Coast last February... Snowzilla was quite a freak occurrence but the books clearly show that freak occurrences are happening more and more lately... In roughly the same frequency as the global temperature is rising.
Mankind is too fuckin' big. That's the real reason.
No respectable scientists anywhere doubt that we've far exceeded the carrying capacity of planet earth. AGW is just the first of many shitstorms we are creating for ourselves from being this big.
We hurt the natural balance in many ways; mostly by killing the other living things on the planet that offset warming. Too much asphalt is one reason; it destroys the Earth's natural AC in urban areas. But I'll give you a better, more believable example:
A. We are eating too many fish.
B. Those meals of ours would have eaten things below them on the food chain.
C. Those less numerous ocean critters, like plankton and diatoms, would have resulted in a lighter-colored ocean.
D. Because the ocean accounts for the majority of groundcover on earth, the earth is now darker-colored and reflects less light.
E. More light NOT reflected away is turned into heat. Voila.
Shit like this is happening all over the planet. In our dirt, in our upper atmostphere, all of it. And yes, more carbon from factories and from more LIVESTOCK needed to feed us is certainly measurable too. We're changing too much stuff all at once.
Shit adds up! :angryfire:
For those of you who don't see how colder winters can be caused by global warming; read this short article: Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News
It basically shows how the storms will naturally go further south in hotter weather... The overall surface average has without a doubt gone up throughout it.
Oh yeah, and for Rexabit's sad argument that global warming would save lives because "more people die from cold deaths each year than they do from heat deaths" -
Remember that a 1 degree Celsius increase in the global temperature won't be noticed by anyone but scientists... As they count the increased number of storms that kill far, far more people than both heat and cold do.
They certianly did in 2010. Just ask anyone in Russia or Pakistan. Even along the East Coast last February... Snowzilla was quite a freak occurrence but the books clearly show that freak occurrences are happening more and more lately... In roughly the same frequency as the global temperature is rising.
Googlebot Wuz Here!
Your grandkids are sooooooo gonna read this and want to beat the shit outta you!
Okay so what I don't understand is Canadians who think global warming is bad. I'm Canadian. I grew up in Ottawa. I left in 1990 after the second coldest winter on record, where it was like -10 at least for 5 months straight. Like Ottawa is the NATION's CAPITAL and it was -10 OR COLDER for 150 DAYS straight.
Where are those lumps of coal, baby.
Where are those lumps of coal, baby.
Most of my state was once covered by glaciers. They all melted long before any machinery was around and they certainly didn't melt from global cooling.
Canadians have the most snow to gain from global warming:
Quote:
If you who don't see how colder winters can be caused by global warming; read this short article: Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News
__________________
come again? I read that article. It applies to Europe, not Canada. Unless I totally missed the money quote somewhere.
Still burning the lumps of coal.
Quote:
If you who don't see how colder winters can be caused by global warming; read this short article: Cold Winters Driven By Global Warming : Discovery News
__________________
come again? I read that article. It applies to Europe, not Canada. Unless I totally missed the money quote somewhere.
Still burning the lumps of coal.
yes real science instead of the psuedo (lets play with the data to fit our beliefs kind). Obviously both are true. Over the centruries mother nature has been less than kind or predictable (look for mammoths still in the ice - frozen in place). And man, as greedy and stupid as we can be, are certainly contributing to the mess. Some of that mess will dissapear with the shortage of oil, then we will get to work on converting coal to fuel again. Perhaps a bigger mess or maybe we will have figured out how to do it better. One thing is for sure. We didn't change all of mother nature in the last 40 years.
Still being a Lump of Troll? What?
Dude, surely you can see that they are talking about cold wintery storms going further south that usual.
That means if the storms north of you now don't sound like a fun place to go hang around in; then stop burning coal.
Lord Monkton For The Motherfuckin Win!!
go take your flu vaccines, ya global warming spooktards.
go take your flu vaccines, ya global warming spooktards.
Exactly.
This video shows how Lord Monckton debunks Al Gore's and global man made warming bullshit:
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zOXmJ4jd-8&feature=channel]YouTube - Updated with Slides - Lord Christopher Monckton Speaking in St. Paul[/ame]
What is global warming? Its global taxation and control.
That Monckton chap is quite the politician. (Not the comedian that he thinks he is though... He should stick to his day job.) :jester:
I just love it when politicians waltz in an scream "Conspiracy! There is no scientific proof!" -And yet do not have a background in science themselves.
Hilarious. (Again, not the jokes he attempted to make. Those were downright bad.)
He makes several classic mistakes in these films above, like referencing Climategate and directing your attention away from all of the other causes of warming... It's like he's trying to be the "Anti-Gore." -Where Gore keeps harping on CO2-based warming, Monckton keeps harping on why it can't be CO2... Even though he does admit that it actually does increase the temperature a tiny bit.
Well that's all it takes, because there are TONS of reasons for the warming, many far better arguments than CO2.
I wouldn't stoop to talking about cap and trade crap... Sounds like a fail/fail solution to me too. Algore is clearly not barking up the right tree with his solution.
But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! No reputable scientist on this rock (other than those employed by Oil companies, natch) would argue for a millisecond that the global average has been going up alarmingly since the 70s, with exponentially steep inclines since 2005.
For those of you who need the big charts; These are from a paper by the National Academy of Science earlier this year that I thought may be relevant here:
"Climategate" was repeatedly (SIX times, in fact) vindicated publically and the Northwest Passage is more free than at any time in human history. Heck, It took centuries of attempts to finally cross the top of North America since the first attempt; Now the US & Canada are in talks of putting in a commercial shipping lane there!
So thank for showing us this amazing footage fueling the denier's fire. I'd laugh if I didn't realize how many years back assholes like him are setting us away from getting serious about fighting this deadly threat.
Now, if you want to read what SCIENTISTS (best in the world, top of their field, and most importantly PEER-REVIEWED) have to say about global warming, I'd recommend starting in scientific journals like "Nature."
NOT from the mouths of Politicians.
I just love it when politicians waltz in an scream "Conspiracy! There is no scientific proof!" -And yet do not have a background in science themselves.
Hilarious. (Again, not the jokes he attempted to make. Those were downright bad.)
He makes several classic mistakes in these films above, like referencing Climategate and directing your attention away from all of the other causes of warming... It's like he's trying to be the "Anti-Gore." -Where Gore keeps harping on CO2-based warming, Monckton keeps harping on why it can't be CO2... Even though he does admit that it actually does increase the temperature a tiny bit.
Well that's all it takes, because there are TONS of reasons for the warming, many far better arguments than CO2.
I wouldn't stoop to talking about cap and trade crap... Sounds like a fail/fail solution to me too. Algore is clearly not barking up the right tree with his solution.
But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater! No reputable scientist on this rock (other than those employed by Oil companies, natch) would argue for a millisecond that the global average has been going up alarmingly since the 70s, with exponentially steep inclines since 2005.
For those of you who need the big charts; These are from a paper by the National Academy of Science earlier this year that I thought may be relevant here:
"Climategate" was repeatedly (SIX times, in fact) vindicated publically and the Northwest Passage is more free than at any time in human history. Heck, It took centuries of attempts to finally cross the top of North America since the first attempt; Now the US & Canada are in talks of putting in a commercial shipping lane there!
So thank for showing us this amazing footage fueling the denier's fire. I'd laugh if I didn't realize how many years back assholes like him are setting us away from getting serious about fighting this deadly threat.
Now, if you want to read what SCIENTISTS (best in the world, top of their field, and most importantly PEER-REVIEWED) have to say about global warming, I'd recommend starting in scientific journals like "Nature."
NOT from the mouths of Politicians.
I thought I was giving Yeah, scientists have are not human and does not succumb to circumstances and self interests.
how about the cru emails:
how about the cru emails:
- Phil Jones writes to University of Hull to try to stop sceptic Sonia Boehmer Christiansen using her Hull affiliation. Graham F Haughton of Hull University says its easier to push greenery there now SB-C has retired.(1256765544)
- Michael Mann discusses how to destroy a journal that has published sceptic papers.(1047388489)
- Tim Osborn discusses how data are truncated to stop an apparent cooling trend showing up in the results (0939154709). Analysis of impact here. Wow!
- Phil Jones describes the death of sceptic, John Daly, as “cheering news”.(1075403821)
- Phil Jones encourages colleagues to delete information subject to FoI request.(1212063122)
- Phil Jones says he has use Mann’s “Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series”…to hide the decline”. Real Climate says “hiding” was an unfortunate turn of phrase.(0942777075)
- Letter to The Times from climate scientists was drafted with the help of Greenpeace.(0872202064)
- Mann thinks he will contact BBC’s Richard Black to find out why another BBC journalist was allowed to publish a vaguely sceptical article.(1255352257)
- Kevin Trenberth says they can’t account for the lack of recent warming and that it is a travesty that they can’t.(1255352257)
- Tom Wigley says that Lindzen and Choi’s paper is crap.(1257532857)
- Tom Wigley says that von Storch is partly to blame for sceptic papers getting published at Climate Research. Says he encourages the publication of crap science. Says they should tell publisher that the journal is being used for misinformation. Says that whether this is true or not doesn’t matter. Says they need to get editorial board to resign. Says they need to get rid of von Storch too. (1051190249)
- Ben Santer says (presumably jokingly!) he’s “tempted, very tempted, to beat the crap” out of sceptic Pat Michaels. (1255100876)
- Mann tells Jones that it would be nice to ‘”contain” the putative Medieval Warm Period’. (1054736277)
- Tom Wigley tells Jones that the land warming since 1980 has been twice the ocean warming and that this might be used by sceptics as evidence for urban heat islands.(1257546975)
- Tom Wigley say that Keith Briffa has got himself into a mess over the Yamal chronology (although also says it’s insignificant. Wonders how Briffa explains McIntyre’s sensitivity test on Yamal and how he explains the use of a less-well replicated chronology over a better one. Wonders if he can. Says data withholding issue is hot potato, since many “good” scientists condemn it.(1254756944)
- Briffa is funding Russian dendro Shiyatov, who asks him to send money to personal bank account so as to avoid tax, thereby retaining money for research.(0826209667)
- Kevin Trenberth says climatologists are nowhere near knowing where the energy goes or what the effect of clouds is. Says nowhere balancing the energy budget. Geoengineering is not possible.(1255523796)
- Mann discusses tactics for screening and delaying postings at Real Climate.(1139521913)
- Tom Wigley discusses how to deal with the advent of FoI law in UK. Jones says use IPR argument to hold onto code. Says data is covered by agreements with outsiders and that CRU will be “hiding behind them”.(1106338806)
- Overpeck has no recollection of saying that he wanted to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. Thinks he may have been quoted out of context.(1206628118)
- Mann launches RealClimate to the scientific community.(1102687002)
- Santer complaining about FoI requests from McIntyre. Says he expects support of Lawrence Livermore Lab management. Jones says that once support staff at CRU realised the kind of people the scientists were dealing with they became very supportive. Says the VC [vice chancellor] knows what is going on (in one case).(1228330629)
- Rob Wilson concerned about upsetting Mann in a manuscript. Says he needs to word things diplomatically.(1140554230)
- Briffa says he is sick to death of Mann claiming his reconstruction is tropical because it has a few poorly temp sensitive tropical proxies. Says he should regress these against something else like the “increasing trend of self-opinionated verbiage” he produces. Ed Cook agrees with problems.(1024334440)
- Overpeck tells Team to write emails as if they would be made public. Discussion of what to do with McIntyre finding an error in Kaufman paper. Kaufman’s admits error and wants to correct. Appears interested in Climate Audit findings.(1252164302)
- Jones calls Pielke Snr a prat.(1233249393)
- Santer says he will no longer publish in Royal Met Soc journals if they enforce intermediate data being made available. Jones has complained to head of Royal Met Soc about new editor of Weather [why?data?] and has threatened to resign from RMS.(1237496573)
- Reaction to McIntyre’s 2005 paper in GRL. Mann has challenged GRL editor-in-chief over the publication. Mann is concerned about the connections of the paper’s editor James Saiers with U Virginia [does he mean Pat Michaels?]. Tom Wigley says that if Saiers is a sceptic they should go through official GRL channels to get him ousted. (1106322460) [Note to readers - Saiers was subsequently ousted]
- Later on Mann refers to the leak at GRL being plugged.(1132094873)
- Jones says he’s found a way around releasing AR4 review comments to David Holland.(1210367056)
- Wigley says Keenan’s fraud accusation against Wang is correct. (1188557698)
- Jones calls for Wahl and Ammann to try to change the received date on their alleged refutation of McIntyre [presumably so it can get into AR4](1189722851)
- Mann tells Jones that he is on board and that they are working towards a common goal.(0926010576)
- Mann sends calibration residuals for MBH99 to Osborn. Says they are pretty red, and that they shouldn’t be passed on to others, this being the kind of dirty laundry they don’t want in the hands of those who might distort it.(1059664704)
- Prior to AR3 Briffa talks of pressure to produce a tidy picture of “apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data”. [This appears to be the politics leading the science] Briffa says it was just as warm a thousand years ago.(0938018124)
- Jones says that UK climate organisations are coordinating themselves to resist FoI. They got advice from the Information Commissioner [!](1219239172)
- Mann tells Revkin that McIntyre is not to be trusted.(1254259645)
- Revkin quotes von Storch as saying it is time to toss the Hockey Stick . This back in 2004.(1096382684)
- Funkhouser says he’s pulled every trick up his sleeve to milk his Kyrgistan series. Doesn’t think it’s productive to juggle the chronology statistics any more than he has.(0843161829)
- Wigley discusses fixing an issue with sea surface temperatures in the context of making the results look both warmer but still plausible. (1254108338)
- Jones says he and Kevin will keep some papers out of the next IPCC report.(1089318616)
- Tom Wigley tells Mann that a figure Schmidt put together to refute Monckton is deceptive and that the match it shows of instrumental to model predictions is a fluke. Says there have been a number of dishonest presentations of model output by authors and IPCC.(1255553034)
- Grant Foster putting together a critical comment on a sceptic paper. Asks for help for names of possible reviewers. Jones replies with a list of people, telling Foster they know what to say about the paper and the comment without any prompting.(1249503274)
- David Parker discussing the possibility of changing the reference period for global temperature index. Thinks this shouldn’t be done because it confuses people and because it will make things look less warm.(1105019698)
- Briffa discusses an sceptic article review with Ed Cook. Says that confidentially he needs to put together a case to reject it (1054756929)
- Ben Santer, referring to McIntyre says he hopes Mr “I’m not entirely there in the head” will not be at the AGU.(1233249393)
- Jones tells Mann that he is sending station data. Says that if McIntyre requests it under FoI he will delete it rather than hand it over. Says he will hide behind data protection laws. Says Rutherford screwed up big time by creating an FTP directory for Osborn. Says Wigley worried he will have to release his model code. Also discuss AR4 draft. Mann says paleoclimate chapter will be contentious but that the author team has the right personalities to deal with sceptics.(1107454306)
You are trying to use consensus with scientists when consensus science itself is political science.