Climate change and global variability
5 March 2008
A significant drop in global average temperature in January 2008 has led to speculation that the Earth is experiencing a period of sustained cooling.
full story at this link (http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/news/cc_global_variability.html)
Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter. Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming.if a polar bear drowns then he was an idiot in the first place
Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter. Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming.
Polar bears have increased from a population of 5,000 in 1972 to between 20,000 and 25,000 today.
hey guys, we're still dumbasses. please don't forget.
ok you stupid earth hating tards;That's not the issue behind gullobal warming. It's the things that DO emit CO2 that are alleged to be the problem.
it is not exact proof that the earth is getting hotter or colder, but one thing you can not deny is that using dirty fuels and industries that emit anything other than CO2 or O2 is crapty.
it is crapty for your lungs, for the smog it makes, and for the waste it creates. do you think using all our NON-renewable resources is a good idea?It's fine. Just don't use baseless scare tactics to promote the use of such resources.
perhaps, just perhaps, the US should think ahead and try to get its act together now, regardless of globing climate change, so we're not falling behind in global technology, increasing costs and taking a big dump on mother earth. don't those things out weigh the thought of "if global warming is a hoax"?First, the U.S. more than likely spends much more money on gullobal warming research than the rest of the world combined. For example, here at K-State, we have a researcher getting $1 million grant to study the effect of dirt on gullobal warming. The driver behind gullobal warming is leveraging cash for research and regulations.
let's fix things before they become a big problem, the technology is out there to do amazing things that pollute less and use re-newable technology.If you want to make changes, then be honest about it. For starters, the polar bears aren't dying off from gullobal warming.
what reasons are there to keep being wastefull and pollute if we don't need to? nevermind the off chance that we may be irreversabilby changing our climate to unstable and unheard of levels that our current population (and population distribution) can not deal with...
I need negative attention because I'm not smart enough to discuss this topic.
... using dirty fuels and industries that emit anything other than CO2 or O2 is crapty. it is crapty for your lungs, for the smog it makes, and for the waste it creates.
do you think using all our NON-renewable resources is a good idea?
let's fix things before they become a big problem, the technology is out there to do amazing things that pollute less and use re-newable technology.
what reasons are there to keep being wastefull and pollute if we don't need to? nevermind the off chance that we may be irreversabilby changing our climate to unstable and unheard of levels that our current population (and population distribution) can not deal with...
if a polar bear drowns then he was an idiot in the first place
Just because it will drive ksudb/azcat/mjrod et al bonkers:That's already been addre$$ed.
what is the motivation for scientists to claim that global warming exists?
what is the motivation for scientists to claim that global warming does not exist?Because some scientists know better than to make baseless proclamations.
which group has the greater motivation?The group that stands to benefit more financially probably has the 'greater' motivation.
thanks in advance!
Just because it will drive ksudb/azcat/mjrod et al bonkers:That's already been addre$$ed.
what is the motivation for scientists to claim that global warming exists?what is the motivation for scientists to claim that global warming does not exist?Because some scientists know better than to make baseless proclamations.which group has the greater motivation?The group that stands to benefit more financially probably has the 'greater' motivation.
thanks in advance!
Agree. What makes you think Exxon Mobil is less able to influence scientists than Green Peace?They aren't necessarily less able.
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Agree. What makes you think Exxon Mobil is less able to influence scientists than Green Peace?They aren't necessarily less able.
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.
I can't believe how dumb you are.
Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.If ExxonMobil is the evil corporation they wouldn't be spending millions of dollars with institutions that undermine it's business.
I can't believe how dumb you are.Tyler Hansbrough puts up another 3 pointer ...
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.
I can't believe how dumb you are.
It is irrelevant. Unless you can show that such research is worthless simply because of the possibility they might have some political influence, then you're just blowing hot air.
Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.If ExxonMobil is the evil corporation they wouldn't be spending millions of dollars with institutions that undermine it's business.I can't believe how dumb you are.Tyler Hansbrough puts up another 3 pointer ...
I can't believe how dumb you are.
How about Exxon Mobil (just Exxon, we'll leave out BP, Citgo, Phillips/Connoco) vs. every single Environmental NGO/Non-Profit?Give us the numbers and show us what you think is happening.
Is there any doubt about the amount of entrenched financial, political and economic leverage in this?Look at the number of climate research organizations that have popped up in the last 10 or 20 years. This was a nonexistant field at one time.
I have no idea about the science, I'm not a climatologist.This statement approaches brilliance ... almost like a supernova that will only occur once in our lifetimes.
I've never seen Gore's movie, I think Malthusian claims are somewhat excitable/unrealistic, I think that private ownership is an important counter-weight to govt. idea's about what is best use for land.There may be vested interests, but it's debatable that it favors the side of contrarian research. Governments can funnel millions or billions of dollars to support the AGW agenda and use that agenda to tax those industries.
But to pretend that the vested interests here are not enormously in favor of there being some sort of contrarian research is just plainly dishonest.
I love it. Everytime I post, it elicits a bunch of childish insults. Thanks for letting me control your miserable life. Roll over, Steve. Play dead, Steve. Steve, quit licking yourself.I can't believe how dumb you are.
This can't be emphasised enough
here comes my MJ scolding
I'm not explaining this to you.
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Yeah, that sounds completely irrelevant.
I can't believe how dumb you are.
It is irrelevant. Unless you can show that such research is worthless simply because of the possibility they might have some political influence, then you're just blowing hot air.
The burden of proof is on those providing the scientific research. You know, peer review, scientific method, ability to re-create conditions and find similar results.
The source of money is ALWAYS a source of consideration in bias. It is why you reject anything cited by MediaMatters out of hand. I'm not even making an argument about global warming, it just reeks of 'doth protest too much' defensive posturing when you won't allow the possibility that the source of funding for scientific experimentation might have substantive effects on the products. I mean it is possible, right?
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly. Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000.
HTH
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly. Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000.
HTH
The argument is that government is neutral.. by the AGW crowd. So that's OK.
LOL.
Exxon Mobile is the failsafe, albeit completely irrelevant issue, in the global warming charade.
Definitely. People tend overlook the fact that ExxonMobil gives about $35 million a year to higher education institutions, most of which are research universities where a lot of the climate change research occurs..
Whereas governmental agencies spent $5,000,000,000 on global warming research last year and the amount is increasing rapidly. Last time I checked $5,000,000,000 > $35,000,000.
HTH
The argument is that government is neutral.. by the AGW crowd. So that's OK.
LOL.
I can't believe how dumb you are.
This can't be emphasised enough
here comes my MJ scolding
it's very frustrating, because it is kind of difficult to use this issue to show how retardish ksdb is without also calling azcat a retard.So instead of being objective about the topic, all you care about is chasing me around with a personal vendetta?? C'mon, don't you have better ways to spend your time??
I'm still undecided on global warming. What should I believe?
I'm still undecided on global warming. What should I believe?
As a geologist, I have taken a few paleo climatoloty classes during my graduate work, and I can safely say that the conflict is not if the climate is changing, but how fast it is changing. If one looks at ice core records from the last 10k+ years, the earth is the warmest now.No, about 4,000 years ago and 7,000 years ago show temperature peaks much higher than today.
This conclusion is come to over and over again looking at several different data sets and using several different things to moderate. The climate changes in cycles, the problem most scientist are having is the RATE of the change. Is the accelerateion of the change man made or not is still up for debate IMO, but the science leans heavily toward yes. And for every one article that says climate change (aka global warming) is a myth, I can probably find 100 that say its not. These are written by scientists from all over the world and have been noting this change since the 60's. What is happening now only supports their work.The guesses about rate of change are based on very small amounts of data, especially compared to paleoclimactic records. Looking at the graph I just posted of the last 40,000 years, there are several time periods that have seen dramatic rates and ranges of temperature change that obviously exceed anything we're experiencing now (for example, about a 5 degree increase between 15,000 to 14,000 years ago. This was a few years before man started driving SUVs.
Also, if anyone looks at a daily or monthly trend of temperatures, clearly does not understand the scientific method. Another point is increaseing oceanic temperatures will cause changes in weather patterns, some for the better some not, identifing a few positives in your favor; Bagdad saw snow, is clearly an outlyer, lets look at the temperature swings globally and the general trend of increasing land and water temps world wide.
Report: Climate change to affect transportation system
Flooded roads and subways, deformed railroad tracks and weakened bridges may be the wave of the future with continuing global warming, a new study says.
Climate change will affect every type of transportation through rising sea levels, increased rainfall and surges from more intense storms, the National Research Council said in a report released Tuesday.
Complicating matters, people continue to move into coastal areas, creating the need for more roads and services in the most vulnerable regions, the report noted.
"We believe that the threats to our transportation system are real," Henry Schwartz Jr. said in a briefing. He is past president and chairman of the engineering firm Sverdrup/Jacobs Civil Inc., and chairman of the committee that wrote the report.
The storm that has been a once-in-a-hundred-years event may become a once-in-50-years, he said, adding, "What is the proper level to design for?"
rest of story at link (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-03-11-climate-transportation_N.htm)
You have to admit, it was pretty friggin hot last summer.
Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter. Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming.
And ____________, at times, could sound like a veritable Green utopian, discussing authoritatively and in detail various renewable energy sources (including environmentally appropriate hydropower and producing natural gas from sludge) as alternatives to coal, and declaring "water, winds and tides" as the energy path of the future.
Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter. Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming.
"...As we're sung to sleep by philosophies, That save the trees and kill the children..."
- Wile You Were Sleeping
Lifesong
Casting Crowns
Thanks... I'll be sure and send the link to the Polar Bears so they know when they are drowning this year that it snowed in Baghdad and China had a cold winter. Hopefully that will make them feel better about the loss of habitat due to imagined global warming.
"...As we're sung to sleep by philosophies, That save the trees and kill the children..."
- Wile You Were Sleeping
Lifesong
Casting Crowns
It's all interconnected. Besides we've got more than enough children.
UN: World's glaciers melting faster
Glaciers are shrinking at record rates and many could disappear within decades, the U.N. Environment Program said Sunday.
Scientists measuring the health of almost 30 glaciers around the world found that ice loss reached record levels in 2006, the U.N. agency said.
rest of story at link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080316/ap_on_sc/un_melting_glaciers_1)
The question I have is what makes the United Nations the expert on glaciers or a clearinghouse for scientific announcements??
havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were indirectly funded by oil companies. dont believe the results
havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were indirectly funded by oil companies. dont believe the results
havent read this entire thread but the global cooling "studies" were funded by people that drive vehicles that run on gas, which supports the oil companies. dont believe the results
i get what you are saying, but we really need to move in a more environmental friendly direction and get off of our dependence on oil.
Hey, if we cut carbon emissions enough, we can kill off the plants that make oxygen. That would be superty-duperty.
i get what you are saying, but we really need to move in a more environmental friendly direction and get off of our dependence on oil. greed is why we are taking this huge risk of destroying our environment. the consequences of us being wrong is too high to risk, imo.
The Mystery of Global Warming's Missing Heat
Some 3,000 scientific robots that are plying the ocean have sent home a puzzling message. These diving instruments suggest that the oceans have not warmed up at all over the past four or five years. That could mean global warming has taken a breather. Or it could mean scientists aren't quite understanding what their robots are telling them.
This is puzzling in part because here on the surface of the Earth, the years since 2003 have been some of the hottest on record. But Josh Willis at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory says the oceans are what really matter when it comes to global warming.
link to rest of story (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025)
My god ksdb, F'ing
Weird how this happened when global temperatures are actually falling this year. I wonder if the "data" some of you guys are presenting might actually be a bit misleading?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/ts_afp/usclimateantarctic_080326111528 (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080326/ts_afp/usclimateantarctic_080326111528)