Global Warming?

Skynut

ND13 wrote:

I know what this thread needs.......MORE COWBELL!!!!!

I don't care who you are.

Thats funny.

MacLeod

WOW! This thread went 5 pages in less than a day!

OK, I am not going to go back and read all 5 pages so if my post has already been covered, I apologize.

Global Warming according to MacLeod:

I believe the earth is going thru a warming period. Thats hard to disdute. However I do not believe mankind had anything to do with it. Just like mankind didnt have anything to do with the earth going thru a cooling period back in the 70's (remember the "global cooling" paranoia?).

Also, the polar ice caps on Mars are melting just like ours. Does that mean there are SUV's on Mars?

Here is my theory. About 93 million miles that way, there is a big old ball of gas millions of times the mass of the earth, burning via nuclear fusion at millions of degrees and its going to be doing so for 10 billion years. Now, something that uncomprehendably (is that a word?) massive and complex aint going to burn at the same intensity forever. Its going to go thru phases and when it does, it will affect our climate as well.

Plus, our orbit around the sun isnt set in stone. It varies and sometimes we'll move closer and sometimes further away. This will also affect the climate.

Another interesting tidbit about the greenhouse effect. Did you know that 98% of that which absorb infra red radiation and create the greehouse effect is water vapor and clouds?!?!? That means if we were to somehow get rid of all the methane, carbon dioxide and others we'd decrease the greehouse effect by only 2%? That comes from a paper written by Richard Lindzen who is a prof of meteorology at the Mass Institute of Technology.

When considering how unbelievably massive and complex this planet, its atmosphere, the sun and this solar system are and how many BILLIONS of years theyve been around, does it really seem logical that humans in only the last 100 years and while inhabiting only 11% of the surface, are chaging the global climate?

aaharvel

that makes sense to me

i don't know much about global warming and I don't pretend to, but i will watch Gore's movie.
I'll also be taking it with a grain of salt.

Demiurge

...and Scientists the world over call Gore's movie bunk, as reported by the Canada Free Press...


Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

OUCH!

schwarcw

Build more nuke plants! Then, build some more.

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

Professor Bob Carter of the Marine Geophysical Laboratory at James Cook University, in Australia gives what, for many Canadians, is a surprising assessment: "Gore's circumstantial arguments are so weak that they are pathetic. It is simply incredible that they, and his film, are commanding public attention."

OUCH!

Bang up job there. A quote from a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming. Guess it doesn't exist, after all.

POLKOHOLIC

bobman1235 wrote:

I read "State of Fear", I haven't gotten around to "An Inconvenient Truth" yet.

Of course, keep in mind the former is fiction...

As for the issue, I'm skeptical about the SCOPE of the argument for global warming. There's obviously an environmental problem out there, but I hate how it's thrown about every time something happens in nature. We had an exceptionally rainy season? GLOBAL WARMING! Snowy winter? GLOBAL WARMING! Tsunami? GLOBAL WARMING!

Perhaps its the fact that all of those events have occured almost consecutively.

pjdami

The Global Warming Topic is as controversial as cables and interconnects. Dr. William Gray had an interesting interview and he's been studying this kind of stuff for over 50 years. Some interesting insight from someone who has made a career out of meteorology.

Hurricanes and Global Warming: Interview with Meteorologist Dr. William Gray
by James K. Glassman (September 12, 2005)

Meteorologist Dr. William Gray may be the world’s most famous hurricane expert. More than two decades ago, as professor of atmospheric science and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at Colorado State University, he pioneered the science of hurricane forecasting. Each December, six months before the start of hurricane season, the now 75-year-old Gray and his team issue a long-range prediction of the number of major tropical storms that will arise in the Atlantic Ocean basin, as well as the number of hurricanes (with sustained winds of 74 miles per hour or more) and intense hurricanes (with winds of at least 111 mph). This year, Gray expects more activity, with 15 named storms, including 8 hurricanes. Four of them, he says, will be intense.

James Glassman: Dr. Gray, in the September issue of Discover Magazine, there’s a remarkable interview with you. You’re called the world’s most famous hurricane…

Dr. William Gray: Well that – you have to talk to my critics about that. I don’t think they would agree with you.

Glassman: Well you certainly…

Gray: I’ve been around a long time, yes. I’ve been around studying hurricanes over 50 years now, I’m an old guy. Yes.

Glassman: Well, you’re in the hurricane forecasting business among other things?

Gray: Well, we’re in the seasonal hurricane forecasting business, and monthly. We don’t do the short range, you know, one to two day crucial forecasts. That can only be done by one group at the National Hurricane Center. But we certainly do a lot of forecasting for different parts of the globe and the hurricane from a seasonal, monthly point of view. Yes.

Glassman: And from a seasonal, monthly point of view, you had been predicting a growing number of hurricanes. Now, my question is in the wake of Katrina and some of the statements that we’ve heard immediately afterwards by advocates of the global warming theory – is global warming behind this increase in hurricanes?

Gray: I am very confident that it’s not. I mean we have had global warming. That’s not a question. The globe has warmed the last 30 years, and the last 10 years in particular. And we’ve had, at least the last 10 years, we’ve had a pick up in the Atlantic basin major storms. But in the earlier period, if we go back from 1970 through the middle ‘90s, that 25 year period – even though the globe was warming slightly, the number of major storms was down, quite a bit down.

Now, another feature of this is that the Atlantic operates differently. The other global storm basins, the Atlantic only has about 12 percent of the global storms. And in the other basins, the last 10 years – even though the Atlantic major storm activity has gone up greatly the last 10 years. In the other global basins, it’s slightly gone down. You know, both frequency and strength of storms have not changed in these other basins. If anything, they’ve slightly gone down. So if this was a global warming thing, you would think, “Well gee, all of the basins should be responding much the same.”

Glassman: You’re familiar with what your colleagues believe. Do you think many hurricane experts would take a different point of view, and would say, “Oh, it’s global warming that’s causing hurricanes?”

Gray: No. All my colleagues that have been around a long time – I think if you go to ask the last four or five directors of the national hurricane center – we all don’t think this is human-induced global warming. And, the people that say that it is are usually those that know very little about hurricanes. I mean, there’s almost an equation you can write the degree to which you believe global warming is causing major hurricanes to increase is inversely proportional to your knowledge about these storms.

Now there’s a few modelers around who know something about storms, but they would like to have the possibility open that global warming will make for more and intense storms because there’s a lot of money to be made on this. You know, when governments step in and are saying this – particularly when the Clinton administration was in – and our Vice President Gore was involved with things there, they were pushing this a lot. You know, most of meteorological research is funded by the federal government. And boy, if you want to get federal funding, you better not come out and say human-induced global warming is a hoax because you stand the chance of not getting funded.

Glassman: We thank you very, very much for this interview. Thank you, Dr. Gray.

Gray: Well thank you for asking me.

I am convinced myself that in 15 or 20 years, we’re going to look back on this and see how grossly exaggerated it all was. The humans are not that powerful. These greenhouse gases, although they are building up, they cannot cause the type of warming these models say – two to five degrees centigrade with a doubling of the greenhouse gases.

Glassman: Well thank you very much for giving us your time.

PolkThug

I found the original interview:

Mr. White: When you're dealing with a store like this, they're insured up the ****. They're not supposed to give you any resistance whatsoever. If you get a customer, or an employee, who thinks he's Charles Bronson, take the butt of your gun and smash their nose in. Everybody jumps. He falls down screaming, blood squirts out of his nose, nobody says **** **** after that. You might get some **** talk **** to you, but give her a look like you're gonna smash her in the face next, watch her shut the **** up. Now if it's a manager, that's a different story. Managers know better than to **** around, so if you get one that's giving you static, he probably thinks he's a real cowboy, so you gotta break that son of a **** in two. If you wanna know something and he won't tell you, cut off one of his fingers. The little one. Then tell him his thumb's next. After that he'll tell you if he wears ladies underwear. I'm hungry. Let's get a taco.

Dr. Gray: Well that – you have to talk to my critics about that. I don’t think they would agree with you.

Glassman: Well you certainly…

Mr. White: The choice between doing ten years and taking out some stupid ****, ain't no choice at all. But I ain't no madman either.

Glassman: Well thank you very much for giving us your time.

Demiurge

unc2701 wrote:

Bang up job there. A quote from a scientist who doesn't believe in global warming. Guess it doesn't exist, after all.

It's more than a quote from one scientist, read the article if you're so inclined. I just posted the part that slams Al Gore the hardest because I don't like him.

up2youjoe

Global warming has been brought to you by the same schmucks that brought you recycling and no oil drilling in Anwar. These morons would have blamed capitalism for global cooling during the ice age because we were making snow on Killington ski resort for skiers.

The earth has a limited amount of resources and when we use them up, the earth will sit for a billion years or so and regenerate itself. We are nothing but a small pimple on its @ss. What we do can't change much in the way the earth runs itself.

Hey I know, lets use more nuke plants to cut down on fossil fuel emissions. Farken same people won't let us. Windmills? "Not in my backyard" they say. Fark em. They have no answers, only complaints.

I am certain that within the next 50 years, these fanatical Muslims will get their hands on some nukes and blammo. Again, the earth will sit and regenerate itself. No big deal.

Hey Al Gore and friends..... STOP FLYING AROUND IN PRIVATE JETS.

Now I will go outside and run my car for an hour just to pollute the air some more.

Demiurge

haha

bikezappa

I'll tell you a story. As I said I don't know **** about global warming but I do know a little something about the ozone layer. I worked at a company that was making parts for a detector for ozone to be lauched into space. This detector was an improvement over the past detectors, more accurate. What they determined with this detector was that the ozone layer at the poles of the earth grew and shrunk every year just like the seasons. And the photos that we saw on the news were when the ozone layer was at it's smallest. The news stories also said that the ozone layer was going away based on these photos. The news stories also never said that the ozone layer came back at the poles every year. It appears that the ozone layer at the poles is very similar to the way the tides of the oceans work.

Bottom line, don't rely on TV or radio news or the polk forum for any 30 second news bits of information. They are lies and distortions for political and profit reasons. Look however at TV and radio programs that have guests with related experience and good data. If you want to know what is going on get out of your easy chair, put down that can of beer and do some investigating and experiments yourself.

Demiurge

Everyone is biased.

unc2701

Demiurge wrote:

It's more than a quote from one scientist, read the article if you're so inclined. I just posted the part that slams Al Gore the hardest because I don't like him.

You don't like Al Gore? How can you not like Al Gore? That's like not liking Canada! No ones cares! It's just there- cold, boring and useless. Now Hillary, I can see not liking that ****.


Anyhow, my point was that global warming is a complex subject and anyone can go out and find quotes (or, say, peer reviewed papers) both for and against it. I only know one person who's actually qualified to have an opinion and his official answer is "Hey, isn't it your turn to buy the next round?" Cheap ****.

MacLeod

bikezappa wrote:

I'll tell you a story. As I said I don't know **** about global warming but I do know a little something about the ozone layer. I worked at a company that was making parts for a detector for ozone to be lauched into space. This detector was an improvement over the past detectors, more accurate. What they determined with this detector was that the ozone layer at the poles of the earth grew and shrunk every year just like the seasons. And the photos that we saw on the news were when the ozone layer was at it's smallest. The news stories also said that the ozone layer was going away based on these photos. The news stories also never said that the ozone layer came back at the poles every year. It appears that the ozone layer at the poles is very similar to the way the tides of the oceans work.

Yeah that ozone pandamonia didnt last too long. Thankfully it was easily debunked and was done away with before it caught on.

All you had to do was look at where the holes in the ozone were; they were over Antarctica! If it were foundries and industries that were destroying the ozone layer why in the hell wasnt the hole sitting above them instead of directly over the LEAST populated part of the earth.

pmckeealaska

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

jdhdiggs

Then why was the hole over the Southern pole when a vast majority of all pollution is produced in the Northern hemisphere?

Demiurge

pmckeealaska wrote:

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

Wow, try not to be an indignant ****.

pmckeealaska

Far better than being an ignorant ****. As I said before, at least have an informed opinion. If I offended your delicate sensibilities than I'm sorry.

MacLeod

pmckeealaska wrote:

They weren't over thoe areas because earth's wind currents move outward from the equator moving many if not most pollutants to the poles, hence the ozone holes in both poles, and the reason why POP's (persistant organis pollutants) also migrate to the poles. If you're going to be critical of something, try at least to know what the hell you're talking about.

Oh, I see. Pollution is worse after its been blown tens of thousands of miles away. I get it now! Thats why there is no smog over LA; its all over Antarctica.

PolkThug

Club Polk Scientists Rule!!

pmckeealaska

It's like beating one's head against the wall. I simply stated a basic fact of climatology. If you choose to ignore fact, then do so at your peril. Last time I checked the planet doesn't pay attention to politics. It just does what it does. Oh, and by the way, most of the pollution in LA is smog, which is a lower atmosphere pollutant and a stable air mass that doesn't move very much. The same holds true for places like Mexico City.

ND13

Shhhhhh............listen...can't you hear it????

A GREEN COWBELL!!!!!!!!! :rolleyes:

MacLeod

pmckeealaska wrote:

It's like beating one's head against the wall. I simply stated a basic fact of climatology.

No, you were being an ****. There is a difference.

tonyb

This just shows us how god awfull stupid we are.We believe every
30 second media bite without any fact or research before forming
an opinion.Let me sum up the whole global warming thing.Now it's been a few years since the old school day's,but I seem to recall at least 5 ice ages in our history,before man ever walked on this planet.Hmmm.... how did that ice receed?Planet warm up a bit?Wait a second,how can that be??? There was no
politics then,no SUV's,no factory's,no hair spray,no club Polk.
WE ARE DOOMED I TELL YOU....DOOMED!!!!!!!

markmarc

Just a few facts. The ozone hole was discovered in the early 1980's by British Scientists. The hole does enlarge at certain times of the year and shrink at others. However, the hole was shown to be growing overall. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed and adjustments were made in 1990, and 1992. The protocol banned CFC's ("chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform)by a certain date)". Gov't and companies around the world went about replacing CFC gases and products that gave off CFC's with other gases/products. The main culprit is chlorine. The results based upon this aggressive action have shown that the ozone hole has pretty much stabilized, as measured in Dobson units. The graphic shows where CFC's, etc are still being produced.

What is interesting is that Dobson ozone measurements have been taken since the 1960's. Yet, no complete connection was made until the 1980's. So, there is a tremendous body of scientific evidence to show what was going on.

The fact that we don't hear about the ozone hole much anymore is based upon the efforts of the world community to agressively eliminate CFC's from the atmosphere. Did it destroy our economy or way of life to protect the planet? No, not in any measureable amount. I would bet that many more jobs were created in replacement products.

The area where CFC's are still being produced in mass amounts (as shown by satellite imagery) is over central western Africa (Nigeria, etc.).

Had the protocols not been put into place, the ozone hole would be at 10% and growing, instead of the stabilized 5% that it is now. An overwhelming majority of scientific research suggests that their is a strong possibility that the hole will heal itself to just 2% by 2050.

Thanks to whomever for bringing up this side issue, it's been a fascinating/illuminating afternoon.

PolkThug

Global warming rocks! Do you guys remember how much damn snow we had to shovel in the late 80's?

tonyb

markmarc wrote:

Just a few facts. The ozone hole was discovered in the early 1980's by British Scientists. The hole does enlarge at certain times of the year and shrink at others. However, the hole was shown to be growing overall. In 1987 the Montreal Protocol was signed and adjustments were made in 1990, and 1992. The protocol banned CFC's ("chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs), halons, carbon tetrachloride, and methyl chloroform--are to be phased out by 2000 (2005 for methyl chloroform)by a certain date)". Gov't and companies around the world went about replacing CFC gases and products that gave off CFC's with other gases/products. The main culprit is chlorine. The results based upon this aggressive action have shown that the ozone hole has pretty much stabilized, as measured in Dobson units. The graphic shows where CFC's, etc are still being produced.

What is interesting is that Dobson ozone measurements have been taken since the 1960's. Yet, no complete connection was made until the 1980's. So, there is a tremendous body of scientific evidence to show what was going on.

The fact that we don't hear about the ozone hole much anymore is based upon the efforts of the world community to agressively eliminate CFC's from the atmosphere. Did it destroy our economy or way of life to protect the planet? No, not in any measureable amount. I would bet that many more jobs were created in replacement products.

The area where CFC's are still being produced in mass amounts (as shown by satellite imagery) is over central western Africa (Nigeria, etc.).

Had the protocols not been put into place, the ozone hole would be at 10% and growing, instead of the stabilized 5% that it is now. An overwhelming majority of scientific research suggests that their is a strong possibility that the hole will heal itself to just 2% by 2050.

Thanks to whomever for bringing up this side issue, it's been a fascinating/illuminating afternoon.

So your telling me hair spray could have ended the free world as we know it??
I suppose the billions upon billions of ants in this world were to all **** at the same time,we'd all blow up???Did you go to Berkley by chance??

tonyb

Almost forgot about the people in western Africa,you know, the ones
with all those air conditioners and hair spray!!!