More Evidence Of Global Warming

[eulessismore]

That argument can go both ways, and we definitely don't know that earth is the only place life exists.

We do know the earth never stays the same!

If you have some other place you think any of us will ever go to live, good luck. It never stays the same, but things operate within certain critical ranges. I first encountered global warming as a student at then NTSU in the 1970's; that, sir, was no inferior education.

[UNTflyer]

Global warming, or "climate change", as being presented by the UN, is not happening.

Scientists are now saying the earth has been cooling since 2002. Lots of studies are now pointing to the sun as the cause of climate change, and that the impact of human activity is minimal.

And any scientist who says the "debate is over" on any theory is no scientist at all.

[eulessismore]

Global warming, or "climate change", as being presented by the UN, is not happening.

Scientists are now saying the earth has been cooling since 2002. Lots of studies are now pointing to the sun as the cause of climate change, and that the impact of human activity is minimal.

And any scientist who says the "debate is over" on any theory is no scientist at all.

I guess you're right; I'll quit thinking of you global warming skeptics so dismissively as like these guys, since I must now conclude that that debate "is not over":

Flat Earthers' Forums

[UNTflyer]

I guess you're right; I'll quit thinking of you global warming skeptics so dismissively as like these guys, since I must now conclude that that debate "is not over":

Flat Earthers' Forums

How can you even compare global warming realists to Flat-Earthers? I'm disappointed.

[UNTflyer]

Also, the term "Global Warming Skeptics" is a political term, not a scientific one. I prefer the term "realists" because all they are doing is testing the theory put forth by global warming advocates, which is exactly what a REAL scientist should do.

[eulessismore]

How can you even compare global warming realists to Flat-Earthers? I'm disappointed.

Hey, I'm disappointed too! I learned about global warming from professors at North Texas, beginning more than 30 years ago, so all these opinions being expressed that those theories being so wrong, I do take as a personal attack against the quality of my college education, of which I am quite proud, and I don't think it second to anyone's university. These weren't necessarily politically oriented opinions being expressed; nuclear power was put forth as an option, at a time when that was not popular with the left, I assure you. And, I'm kind of like hickoryhouse; having been to the Columbia Ice Fields of Alberta, Canada, and seeing places marked where glaciers had been was quite sobering to me. Honestly, those markers were showing changes over multiple decades, which is about when I see climatic data start having some meaning. Certainly, I find it difficult to consider a day's weather, which is what started this thread, to say much about climate; and anyone saying Bush had anything to do with Hurricane Katrina itself is ridiculous.

[KingDL1]

Hey, I'm disappointed too! I learned about global warming from professors at North Texas, beginning more than 30 years ago, so all these opinions being expressed that those theories being so wrong, I do take as a personal attack against the quality of my college education, of which I am quite proud, and I don't think it second to anyone's university. These weren't necessarily politically oriented opinions being expressed; nuclear power was put forth as an option, at a time when that was not popular with the left, I assure you. And, I'm kind of like hickoryhouse; having been to the Columbia Ice Fields of Alberta, Canada, and seeing places marked where glaciers had been was quite sobering to me. Honestly, those markers were showing changes over multiple decades, which is about when I see climatic data start having some meaning. Certainly, I find it difficult to consider a day's weather, which is what started this thread, to say much about climate; and anyone saying Bush had anything to do with Hurricane Katrina itself is ridiculous.

I think it is fairly clear the earth warms and cools without us. Hell Dallas and Ft Worth used to be under water.

[UNTflyer]

I think it is fairly clear the earth warms and cools without us. Hell Dallas and Ft Worth used to be under water.

Exactly. The climate has changed, warming and cooling, without humans causing it for billions of years. The whole global warming debate is being driven by individuals who cast the United States as privileged polluters and that we must either A. give up our role as the world's biggest economy or B. pay an extremely expensive cost to maintain it.

[SUMG]

The Home of the Packers has its' lowest high temperature for a day in June...since 1943:

http://www.greenbaypressgazette.com/articl...en+Bay+Saturday

Oh btw......the ice in my scotch and water isn't nearly as big as it was 30 minutes ago. That's the closest thing I have to keeping up with the Joneses in the glacier melt-off contest. Current leader: Hickory House by a tad.

[eulessismore]

I think it is fairly clear the earth warms and cools without us. Hell Dallas and Ft Worth used to be under water.

I think you're confusing the significance of things that happen within different time frames: Here's a quote, and then the link to the overall series from which it came. "Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime," says Fagre. "It's like watching the Statue of Liberty melt."

National Geographic Global Warming Series

I think others may have posted parts of this before, but that's the link to their entire series. If you can think of reasons why you think I should believe your sources rather than National Geographic, feel free to let me know what they are.

[UNTflyer]

The Home of the Packers has its' lowest high temperature for a day in June...since 1943:

I'm very despondent over your new avatar. it just doesn't quite live up to your past achievements.

[eulessismore]

Exactly. The climate has changed, warming and cooling, without humans causing it for billions of years. The whole global warming debate is being driven by individuals who cast the United States as privileged polluters and that we must either A. give up our role as the world's biggest economy or B. pay an extremely expensive cost to maintain it.

They probably just gave us a different perspective over there in Earth and Life Sciences, which is, that American Ingenuity would find ways to make even more money from creating and manufacturing clean technologies, and selling it to other countries. And honestly, I'm becoming convinced that the whole gobal warming "realism" is being driven by funding from big energy companies who use it to distract us from the cycles of increasing gasoline prices that are beginning regularly every year shortly before Memorial Day weekend. Yes, as an environmentalist, I think high energy prices fuel conservation, but as an American, I think the prices last year went up too high, further damaging the economy, at a particularly bad time.

[SUMG]

I'm very despondent over your new avatar. it just doesn't quite live up to your past achievements.

I'll change it.........

[keith]

Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it isn't science. It is a political movement and a business. The earth is in a constant state of change. It always has been and always will be until our rather run of the mill star becomes a red giant and fries mother earth to a crisp before engulfing it.

Keith

[eulessismore]

Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it isn't science. It is a political movement and a business. The earth is in a constant state of change. It always has been and always will be until our rather run of the mill star becomes a red giant and fries mother earth to a crisp before engulfing it.

Keith

That's your political and business philosophy and you're entitled to it. And your comment about the end of the Sun confirms a belief I've had for a while that the Bible Thumpers and the Scientists agree on one thing; the world will end. The End Timers just don't want to wait that long. And you can read one of my above posts (and use the link to the National Geographic) about use of appropriate time frames for comparing the Earth's climatic changes.

[keith]

That's your political and business philosophy and you're entitled to it. And your comment about the end of the Sun confirms a belief I've had for a while that the Bible Thumpers and the Scientists agree on one thing; the world will end. The End Timers just don't want to wait that long. And you can read one of my above posts (and use the link to the National Geographic) about use of appropriate time frames for comparing the Earth's climatic changes.

National Geographic is in the business of selling its periodical. What sells these days? "Researchers" are given millions of dollars in government grants to build a case for, oops I mean study, global warming (wait it's now called climate change since there wasn't any evidence to support global warming). Do you think they are really going to kill the golden goose. This is their only source of income. We're all being swindled with this Inconvenient Goof.

Keith

[SUMG]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

[eulessismore]

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CN...;show_article=1

Sorry; I like SUMG, but Breitbart just doesn't have the cred with me (a British Tory? I thought we whipped them once). I'm going to keep taking the train to work' yes, there's plenty of people on there at the times I take it.

[KingDL1]

I think you're confusing the significance of things that happen within different time frames: Here's a quote, and then the link to the overall series from which it came. "Things that normally happen in geologic time are happening during the span of a human lifetime," says Fagre. "It's like watching the Statue of Liberty melt."

National Geographic Global Warming Series

I think others may have posted parts of this before, but that's the link to their entire series. If you can think of reasons why you think I should believe your sources rather than National Geographic, feel free to let me know what they are.

Change has happened fast and slow, they had a special on discovery science that showed when trends changed the can happen fast within decades. What are you talking about less than a degree difference in world average temperature over the last forty years?

[eulessismore]

Been fun; time for bed now; the snow may have melted in Minot when I post here next. And how about that North Dakota law enforcement?

[UNTflyer]

Any theory that demands blind faith to the point of ridiculing those who dare to question is not based on science.

We have real data that challenges the theory of man-made global warming:

FACT: earth temperatures have been cooling since 2002.

FACT: when temperatures were rising, similar observations were made of Jupiter

FACT: ...and Mars (National Geographic link)

FACT: ...and Triton (MIT link)

FACT: sea levels are not rising

FACT: polar ice caps are expanding, not shrinking

I think based on the conflicting observations, all we can know for sure is that science, shockingly, does NOT have all the answers.

Edited June 8, 2009 by UNTflyer

[FirefightnRick]

http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialrep.../fireandice.asp

It was five years before the turn of the century and major media were warning of disastrous climate change. Page six of The New York Times was headlined with the serious concerns of “geologists.” Only the president at the time wasn’t Bill Clinton; it was Grover Cleveland. And the Times wasn’t warning about global warming – it was telling readers the looming dangers of a new ice age.

The year was 1895, and it was just one of four different time periods in the last 100 years when major print media predicted an impending climate crisis.

And for those who were in school 30 year ago had to remember this:

Just three decades ago, in 1975, the paper reported: “A Major Cooling Widely Considered to Be Inevitable.”

And since it seems to have been ignored, here's the context of another posted link:

The Cooling World

Newsweek, April 28, 1975

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production – with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteorologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually. During the same time, the average temperature around the equator has risen by a fraction of a degree – a fraction that in some areas can mean drought and desolation. Last April, in the most devastating outbreak of tornadoes ever recorded, 148 twisters killed more than 300 people and caused half a billion dollars’ worth of damage in 13 U.S. states.

To scientists, these seemingly disparate incidents represent the advance signs of fundamental changes in the world’s weather. The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth’s climate seems to be cooling down. Meteorologists disagree about the cause and extent of the cooling trend, as well as over its specific impact on local weather conditions. But they are almost unanimous in the view that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century. If the climatic change is as profound as some of the pessimists fear, the resulting famines could be catastrophic. “A major climatic change would force economic and social adjustments on a worldwide scale,” warns a recent report by the National Academy of Sciences, “because the global patterns of food production and population that have evolved are implicitly dependent on the climate of the present century.”

A survey completed last year by Dr. Murray Mitchell of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration reveals a drop of half a degree in average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. According to George Kukla of Columbia University, satellite photos indicated a sudden, large increase in Northern Hemisphere snow cover in the winter of 1971-72. And a study released last month by two NOAA scientists notes that the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3% between 1964 and 1972.

To the layman, the relatively small changes in temperature and sunshine can be highly misleading. Reid Bryson of the University of Wisconsin points out that the Earth’s average temperature during the great Ice Ages was only about seven degrees lower than during its warmest eras – and that the present decline has taken the planet about a sixth of the way toward the Ice Age average. Others regard the cooling as a reversion to the “little ice age” conditions that brought bitter winters to much of Europe and northern America between 1600 and 1900 – years when the Thames used to freeze so solidly that Londoners roasted oxen on the ice and when iceboats sailed the Hudson River almost as far south as New York City.

Just what causes the onset of major and minor ice ages remains a mystery. “Our knowledge of the mechanisms of climatic change is at least as fragmentary as our data,” concedes the National Academy of Sciences report. “Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions.”

Meteorologists think that they can forecast the short-term results of the return to the norm of the last century. They begin by noting the slight drop in overall temperature that produces large numbers of pressure centers in the upper atmosphere. These break up the smooth flow of westerly winds over temperate areas. The stagnant air produced in this way causes an increase in extremes of local weather such as droughts, floods, extended dry spells, long freezes, delayed monsoons and even local temperature increases – all of which have a direct impact on food supplies.

“The world’s food-producing system,” warns Dr. James D. McQuigg of NOAA’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, “is much more sensitive to the weather variable than it was even five years ago.” Furthermore, the growth of world population and creation of new national boundaries make it impossible for starving peoples to migrate from their devastated fields, as they did during past famines.

Climatologists are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change, or even to allay its effects. They concede that some of the more spectacular solutions proposed, such as melting the Arctic ice cap by covering it with black soot or diverting arctic rivers, might create problems far greater than those they solve. But the scientists see few signs that government leaders anywhere are even prepared to take the simple measures of stockpiling food or of introducing the variables of climatic uncertainty into economic projections of future food supplies. The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality.

—PETER GWYNNE with bureau reports

Oh, and by the way, The Burger King sign:

Dr. Mark Levin on Global Warming

....the Enviro-Statist has only just begun. His most noxious assault on humankind and the civil society is presented as man-made "global warming". Amazingly, not long ago "global cooling" was all the rage, with warnings of cataclysmic destruction from flooding, famine, and upheaval.

In 1971, Dr. S.I. Rasool, a NASA scientist, insisted that "in the next 50 years, the fine dust man constantly puts into the atmosphere by fossil fuel-burning could screen out so much sunlight that the average temperature could drop by six degrees". Rasool further claimed that "if sustained over several years---five to ten such temperature decrease could be sufficient to trigger an ice age." Incidentally, in arriving at his conclusions, Rasool used, in part, a computer model created by his NASA colleague and current global warming mystic Dr. James Hansen.

The global cooling alarm was sounded throughout the 1970's. In 1974, TIME magazine featured an article titled "Another Ice Age?" which cited evidence purporting to show the atmosphere cooling for the previous thirty years. "Telltale signs [of global cooling] are everywhere---from the unexpected persistence and thickness of pack ice in the waters around Iceland to the southward migration of a warmth-loving creature like the armadillo from the Midwest." The article featured opinions from climate experts who suggested that mankind may have been responsible for the earth's cooling. Reid A. Bryson of the University of Wisconsin theorized that dust and "other particles released into the atmosphere as a result of farming and fuel burning may be cocking more and more sunlight."

In 1975, scientists again raised the specter of global cooling. A famous article appearing in Newsweek magazine, title "The Cooling World," concluded, "The central fact is that after three quarters of a century of extraordinarily mild conditions, the earth's climate seems to be cooling down." It continued, "[Meteorologists] are almost unanimous in the view that the trend [of global cooling] will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century." The article cited a survey completed in 1974 by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) revealing a drop of half a agree in the average ground temperatures in the Northern Hemisphere between 1945 and 1968. NOAA scientist had also concluded that "the amount of sunshine reaching the ground in the continental U.S. diminished by 1.3 percent between 1964 and 1972.

Of course, there was no new Ice Age. The "almost unanimous" opinion of weather experts about man-made global cooling was wrong. The Enviro-Statist then swung in the opposite direction, insisting that is the "almost unanimous" opinion of scientists and other experts that rather than cooling, the earth is actually warming, and man is the culprit once again.

In 2008, the same Newsweek that gave weight to the false science of global cooling published an article titled "Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year's Extreme Weather."

....There is no consensus that man has influenced the earth's temperature or that the earth's temperature is warmer now than in past periods. And even if there were a consensus, science is not about majority rule. It either is or it is not.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Richard Lindzen classified "scientific consensus" respecting global warming as "unscientific". He said, "With respect to science, the assumption behind the consensus is that science is a source of authority. Rather, is is a particularly effective approach to inquiry and analysis.. Skepticism is essential to science; consensus is foreign. When in 1988 Newsweek announced that all scientists agreed about global warming, this should have been a red flag of warning.

...President Bill Clinton's undersecretary of state for global affairs, Timothy Wirth said ""We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing, in terms of economic policy and environmental policy." And what is the right thing? Maurice Strong, who was an adviser to former United Nations secretary-general Kofi Annan, provides an answer: "We may get to the point where the only way to save the world will be for the industrial civilization to collapse." What he really means, of course, is that the world would be saved if the United States collapsed.

Liberty and Tyranny

Rick

Edited June 8, 2009 by FirefightnRick

[UNTflyer]

And they claimed the global cooling of the 1970s had already killed thousands of people in third world countries,

The cooling has already killed thousands of people in poor nations... If it continues, and no strong measures are taken to deal with it, the cooling will cause world famine, world chaos, and probably world war, and this could all come about by the year 2000. (Lowe Ponte, The Cooling, 1976)

Much like the same hyperbolic claim last week.

Climate change is already responsible for 300,000 deaths a year and is affecting 300m people, according to the first comprehensive study of the human impact of global warming.

And what do the global warming fanatics want to do about it?

Shareholders and investors in fossil fuels need to be aware that they now face a liability that will amount to hundreds of billions of dollars – their products are killing people, and it is only a matter of time before the wheels of international justice begin to turn.

[forevereagle]

This thread is gold. I don't think that either side has the answers, but everyone claims to. How can both sides be right? Everyone seems to have this or that supported fact. It is a conundrum. Don't think about it too hard, you're head might explode.

[eulesseagle]

35 errors of Gore's award winning movie:

http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/goreerrors.html

I guess when you own companies that benefit, financially, from purchasing carbon off-sets, you want to scam as many people as possible as fast as you can. This is another example of what Goebels once said and I paraphrase, "you tell a lie long enough and people (sheeple as Pravda said recently) will begin to believe it."

Will this NEW carbon off set "TAX" pass congress during Barack Hussain Obama's administration....you bet.....the socalist liberals will pass this redistribution tax on us all.

____________________________________

-----you will have to scroll down about half way to see this specific chart on the 27 year cycle of cooling and warming since the 1400's.------

all the other info is ok but the 27 year cooling/warming cycle is the most important to this discussion.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?con...a&aid=10783

Edited June 8, 2009 by eulesseagle