The evidence against anthropogenic global warming (Page 9/600)
AusFiero JUL 13, 03:58 AM
Wasn't Al Gore on the causing an ice age band wagon not so many years back?
Seems he has no idea either way.
silver 85 sc JUL 13, 10:05 AM
I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.

1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie

2) With all the forest fires raging in California, is not carbon dioxide being produced? By the tons? If global warming is fact I think California is to blame. Just think of all the carbon contained in a house that is burning.

3) Methane hydrate. Any disturbance of the methane hydrate fields in the oceans could pump out tons of this stuff which would break down into water and methane. Methane is 25x the global warming gas as CO2.

4) What about methane in the landfills that is vented directly into the air? There are landfills everywhere in the world and why are they not brought up? I recall a few years ago burping cows were a concern.

5) Why is volcanic activity not mentioned with global warming? Especially with the gases they spew out.

6) Since traffic jams seem so common in major cities, and If global warming people have such a problem with CO2 why haven't ordinances been passed to make people shut off their cars in traffic jams? Just think of the problems this could solve. Wait that would be just one, fuel consumption. I doubt that Al could go that long without AC

7) Why don't all the dams in this country have hydroelectric capabilities. Oh wait, I recall that the Higgins Eye Clam is endangered and by putting a turbine on the dams it will effect the Higgins Eye Clam population. And the same people that are against global warming are for the clam, so I'm sensing cave era living. (I live along the Mississippi and this is the reason holding up electrifying the dam here)

8) I hear Ted Kennedy is for wind power, but not in his backyard. I would love to put one up in my yard, but the eagles fly in this area and well you know the same people that are against global warming are trying to protect the eagles (and probably the sparrows and cardinals and blue jays and crows and blackbirds and bats and who knows june bugs and mosquitos and flys and...)

9) With the billions of people on this planet and all the protected animals endangered and not endangered (deer population in Dubuque is out of control) we have all this breathing going on. Don't we exhale CO2? That has to be doing something to the atmosphere. And what about us poor bastards that have to do extremely heavy work. Are we going to need carbon credits? The pulling and the lifting I do can leave me out of breath and that heavy breathing will create more CO2. Multiply that by millions? billions? Did I mention weight lifters or runners? Just imagine what the insect population is cranking out. Are the global warming people in favor of pesticides? I'm pretty sure they are against herbicides. We need weeds to use CO2.

10) Geothermal energy is a possibility but then again the destruction of natures beauty will happen and we can't have that either.

If this country ever gets back to the Constitution, We the People will have a say. But with the republicrats and the demoplicans in charge we the people are shackled. And in their infinite wisdom we are bound. Sounds like slavery is alive and well doesn't it? Is this another stepping stone to communism?

I know I strayed a little take the ramblings as food for thought,

Rich
fierobear JUL 13, 03:54 PM

quote
Originally posted by silver 85 sc:

I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.

[quote]1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie






quote
2) With all the forest fires raging in California, is not carbon dioxide being produced? By the tons? If global warming is fact I think California is to blame. Just think of all the carbon contained in a house that is burning.



One estimate is 8 millions tons, 25% of CA's yearly anthropogenic release.
California fires release 8M tons of CO2


quote
7) Why don't all the dams in this country have hydroelectric capabilities. Oh wait, I recall that the Higgins Eye Clam is endangered and by putting a turbine on the dams it will effect the Higgins Eye Clam population. And the same people that are against global warming are for the clam, so I'm sensing cave era living. (I live along the Mississippi and this is the reason holding up electrifying the dam here)



Environmentalist opposition. 'Hydro' Hindered by Environmentalist Dam


quote
8) I hear Ted Kennedy is for wind power, but not in his backyard. I would love to put one up in my yard, but the eagles fly in this area and well you know the same people that are against global warming are trying to protect the eagles (and probably the sparrows and cardinals and blue jays and crows and blackbirds and bats and who knows june bugs and mosquitos and flys and...)



Environmentalists sue to protect birds. Environmentalists vs. wind farm
Another lawsuit


quote
9) With the billions of people on this planet and all the protected animals endangered and not endangered (deer population in Dubuque is out of control) we have all this breathing going on. Don't we exhale CO2? That has to be doing something to the atmosphere. And what about us poor bastards that have to do extremely heavy work. Are we going to need carbon credits? The pulling and the lifting I do can leave me out of breath and that heavy breathing will create more CO2. Multiply that by millions? billions? Did I mention weight lifters or runners? Just imagine what the insect population is cranking out. Are the global warming people in favor of pesticides? I'm pretty sure they are against herbicides. We need weeds to use CO2.



Evidently, it's isn't a problem. Good thing, I'd hate to think what the enviros would do to us if we were a major contributor to global bullshit...er...warming.

" Q. Should we be concerned with human breathing as a source of CO2?

A. No. While people do exhale carbon dioxide (the rate is approximately 1 kg per day, and it depends strongly on the person's activity level), this carbon dioxide includes carbon that was originally taken out of the carbon dioxide in the air by plants through photosynthesis - whether you eat the plants directly or animals that eat the plants. Thus, there is a closed loop, with no net addition to the atmosphere. Of course, the agriculture, food processing, and marketing industries use energy (in many cases based on the combustion of fossil fuels), but their emissions of carbon dioxide are captured in our estimates as emissions from solid, liquid, or gaseous fuels. [RMC] "
fierobear JUL 13, 04:17 PM
So Much For Flooded Cities: Greenland Ice Loss Not Increasing

Longest-term study yet of the continent says nothing to fear.

For global warming activists, Greenland is the most potent weapon of fear in their arsenal. With Antarctica cooling, and the floating ice at the North Pole incapable of affecting sea levels, Greenland alone can contribute the vast amounts of melted ice capable of flooding cities. Greenland -- which began gradually melting at the end of the last ice age some 20,000 years ago -- continues to slowly shed ice today.

The only problem? It's melting far too slowly. At its current rate, Greenland will take thousands of years to significantly affect sea level.

Fears have still arisen, however, over claims that melting rate is being accelerated by man-made global warming. Some past studies have indicated this may be happening, by measuring the rate at which glaciers have slid towards the sea, sped by melt water beneath lubricating the process.

However, a new study has concluded that Greenland's rate of melting is not accelerating, and in fact may actually be decreasing when viewed over a longer timescale. The study, which used 17 years of satellite measurements to reach its conclusions, determined the overall yearly movement of ice to the sea is not increasing, and is actually decreasing in some places.

The researchers noted the speedup observed by past studies was strictly a short-term transient phenomena, occurring primarily in the summer months.

The study, which is appearing in the Friday edition of the journal Science, was led by Dutch Researcher Roderik S.W. van de Wal, of the Institute for Marine and Atmospheric Research of the University of Utrecht.

Claiming losses in coastal property values, a group of Spanish homeowners and investors last month threatened Greenpeace with legal action over exaggerated claims of sea level rise.
fierobear JUL 13, 06:11 PM

quote
Originally posted by silver 85 sc:

I wish I had all the facts instead of the garbage we are being fed. Here are some questions I have for the global warming people that I would love to have answered.

1) Where are the temperatures being measured. If temps are being measured in or around cities the values must be thrown out. Ever fried an egg on hot concrete? Or even a black roof. Get enough buildings together and you can bias temperature ratings to indicate that doom is inevitable. Shoot even a plowed field is warmer than a grassy prairie




Oops, sorry dude, I forgot one reference...about surface station data being HIGHLY suspect because of the location of the temperature equipment. Such as on a roof, on or near asphalt, next to air conditioning units, and so on. Much of the temperature data they use for global warming comes from these stations, and they show a temperature spike after they've been placed at or moved hear the above mentioned heat sources.

This site is run by Anthony Watts, who has been doing a study on how badly the temperature sensors are placed at many of the official weather stations here in this country:
http://www.surfacestations.org/

You can also hear or see a talk he gave at the International Conference on Climate Change, which featured speakers presenting the evidence against AGW. Link: http://www.heartland.org/NewYork08/proceedings.cfm

[This message has been edited by fierobear (edited 07-13-2008).]

rogergarrison JUL 13, 08:07 PM
Pt Columbus weather service station is in the middle of the airport. Completely surrounded by paved tarmac gates and ramps, not to mention the 30 jets setting there most of the times.
fierobear JUL 14, 12:25 AM
Here is what James Hansen, the (in-)famous global warmist from NASA has been doing to the temperature data...

Correct the Corrections: The GISS Urban Adjustment

ASA’s Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS) publishes a global temperature index. The temperature record is contaminated by the effects of urban development and land use changes. NASA applies an “urbanization adjustment” to adjust the temperature histories to eliminate these effects. The resulting GISS temperature index is supposed to represent what the temperatures would have been in the absence of urbanization and land use changes. Most scientists assume that these adjustments are done correctly. The index is used to show that CO2 emissions are causing climate change.

An audit by researcher Steve McIntyre reveals that NASA has made urban adjustments of temperature data in its GISS temperature record in the wrong direction. The temperatures in urban areas are generally warmer than in rural areas. McIntyre classified the 7364 weather stations in the GISS world-wide network into various categories depending on the direction of the urban adjustment. NASA has applied a “negative urban adjustment” to 45% of the urban station measurements (where adjustments are made), meaning that the adjustments makes the warming trends steeper. The table below shows the number of negative and positive adjustments made to the station temperature trends.

The urban adjustment is supposed to remove the effects of urbanization, but the NASA negative adjustments increases the urbanization effects. The result is that the surface temperature trend utilized by the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is exaggerated.



Satellite data is free of urbanization effects and provide truly global coverage continually. Previous problems with satellite drift affecting temperature calculations have been corrected. Newer satellites have station keeping capability and do not drift. The satellite data is much superior to land measurement. The satellite global temperature trend from 2002 to May 2008 is a decline of 0.25 Celsius per decade, significant global cooling for over 6 years. Read Ken’s full report here. See this informative post by Steve McIntyre here on the NASA urban fiasco. Also other reasons why GISS is warmest here.
fierobear JUL 14, 12:34 AM
Hmmm...not warming? Here come the excuses...

Researchers: Global Warming Halts Until 2020

New research indicates no warming for next 15 years.

Previous articles in DailyTech highlighted the views of scientists who believe another Ice Age approaches, the rapid temperature decline in 2007, and the official prediction of the United Nations that the planet will continue cooling in 2008. Now, a team of researchers has predicted that global warming will halt for up to 15 years, as oscillating ocean currents cause the planet to cool slightly.

In a paper appearing the journal Nature, the scientists study changes in SST (sea surface temperatures) caused by the Atlantic Mutidecadal Oscillation and the Meridional Overturning Oscillation. A larger, slower-acting version of the better-known El Nino/La Nina oscillation, the MOC is expected to weaken over the next 15-20 years, causing cooling throughout Europe and North America. Pacific temperatures are expected to remain flat.

The actual cause of the MOC is unknown, but its cycles last from 60 to 70 years and, by this new research, it appears to have a much stronger effect on climate than previously thought. It may also explain why global temperatures rose during the first half of the 20th Century, before beginning a 30-year cooling trend in 1940.

The most intriguing part of this research is the scientists themselves. Led by Noel Keenlyside, the team from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Science and the Max Planck Institute of Meteorology have not in the past been global warming skeptics. In fact, they've been solidly on the side of catastrophic anthropogenic warming.

Physicist and ex-Harvard professor Lubos Motl, who was not involved in the research, says the discovery of such a large, previously unknown factor indicates a "critical flaw" in modeling predictions, "no paper so far has even properly combined the effects of ENSO, PDO, and AMO". Motl believes the research indicates that IPCC climate predictions will be incorrect for as much as 70 years in the future.

However, Richard Wood, from the U.K.'s Hadley Center for Climate Change, says that it's "important to make sure we don't get distracted" from the long-term problem of greenhouse gas emissions. Wood also cautions that such modeling is in its infancy, and the results may change.
Phranc JUL 14, 01:09 AM
Keep the hits coming!

And thanks for doing the leg work. I use these links on another forum and love watching the Gorites go into convulsions attacking the sources and the motives of the skeptics but never the data or the showing of how the data is seriously flawed. The best is when they attack me for posting the links saying I'm an idiot that knows nothing about the way science works. I am an evil moron it seems because I question the Gorical.
fierobear JUL 14, 02:59 AM

quote
Originally posted by Phranc:

Keep the hits coming!

And thanks for doing the leg work. I use these links on another forum and love watching the Gorites go into convulsions attacking the sources and the motives of the skeptics but never the data or the showing of how the data is seriously flawed. The best is when they attack me for posting the links saying I'm an idiot that knows nothing about the way science works. I am an evil moron it seems because I question the Gorical.



You're welcome. It bugs the s*** out of me, the hype and bullshit surrounding this subject. So I'm on a quest to learn the truth, and I'm studying the science - as best as I can - on AGW.