This was an eye opener

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304319#post15304319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
The evidence that the climate is cyclical is in my yard.

Yes indeed. And no one in the scientific community is claiming that there aren't such natural cycles. Yet another reason to avoid getting your information from the media, on any side of the issue. What the is claimed in scientific community is that anthropogenic warming is causing the natural cycles to be amplified...i.e. the warming cycle occurs at a much faster rate and likely will peak higher than it would otherwise. Faster warming means life on this planet has a much shorter, and therefore harder time to adapt to these changes. That includes the Human species

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304319#post15304319 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
I live about 25 miles from the Gulf of Mexico and my yard elevation is approximately 12 NGVD (12 feet above mean sea level).

The evidence that the climate is cyclical is in my yard. Fossil shells. Now, how did they get there unless the sea level was at least 13 feet higher at some point in the past indicating much warmer climate.

Now, a good friend of mine is an avid fossil hunter. She has found several mammoth teeth in about 20 feet of water several miles off of the coast of Venice (Florida). That tells me that at some point in the Earth's past, the water table was significantly lower, indicating much colder climate.

So, how did man cause both of these episodes?

who said man was responsible for every single climate cycle???

 

[greenbean36191]

Just because there are natural causes for an affect does not mean there cannot be anthropogenic causes that result in the same effect. You wouldn't argue that a carelessly discarded match or cigarette butt can't cause forest fires since lightning causes them naturally, would you? The logic is no different than arguing that humans cannot change the climate because the climate changed naturally in the past.

 

[Joshsmit56001]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304407#post15304407 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by billsreef
It is quite possible to talk about the science and leave the politics out of the discussion. While many might want to bring the politics into such discussions, that is a violation of our <a href=http://reefcentral.com/agreement.php target=_blank>User Agreement</a>, so leaving the politics out is necessary. There are other forums on the net that you can discuss the political issues, just not here on RC

BTW if you take the time to notice, those of in this thread that believe in anthropogenic global warming have done so from reading the scientific literature, not the popular press Heck, I was convinced long before anyone even heard of Al Gore, so I don't even know why anyone bothers bringing up his name when the idea is to try and discuss science instead of pop media figures :lol:

There is just as much scientific data supporting the opposition to global warming but this information is not reported by the media once again because of the leftward lean.

The number one reason why the earth's climate changes is the sun. The global warming crowd tends to completely overlook the effects of the sun. Climate change has been existent since the birth of the earth and C02 Gases have not been the culprit for these changes, the sun has been the main reason. As others have stated earlier in the post, the data that we have regarding C02 and earth temperatures is a drop in the bucket compared to the life of the earth. The only thing that has been fairly consistent during the life of the earth has been the sun. As was stated earlier, the oceans have risen and fallen with time as has earths temperature. Climate is cyclical and anyone who says differently has a false sense of climate change. One volcano blows more "pollution" into the atmosphere than mankind has in our history, yet earth's various systems work together and clean things up. Do you actually believe that in the case of 38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air, with only 1 new molecule added every 5 years or so, is going to be the unmitigated disaster that Al Gore and those prone to spontaneous goregasm insist? C02 is less then 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere and of that, only about 25% of that is man made. Why can't the global warming cultists understand how absolutely insignificant that is?????

 

[jdhuyvetter]

The point is the the news media and politicians need to sell themselves. Hence the sensationization of global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The next ice age was only a few months away. Now they've gone to the other extreme with little or no scientific evidence to back it up.

I'm not saying that there is no scientific evidence, but in my opinion it is very much incomplete. Christopher Columbus came to North America during the end of a "mini" ice age. Where was the scientfic data then? What about the monitoring stations in western Europe during the Industrial Revolution?

I'm not advocating a "wait and see" stance. I'm just tired of the paranoia that the media and Al Gore are generating. Mr. Gore stands to make millions of dollars for doing nothing. Carbon credits are a load of crap. He and a few others will make money without doing a thing for the environment.

 

[Joshsmit56001]

The funny thing is that this post was started because of an article stating this as the conclusion.

"Global warming (i.e, the warming since 1977) is over. The minute increase of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere (0.008%) was not the cause of the warmingâ€"it was a continuation of natural cycles that occurred over the past 500 years."

This entire article states that it is not C02 that is the cause of global warming and cooling but natural cyclical changes every 30 years or so.

 

[Joshsmit56001]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
The point is the the news media and politicians need to sell themselves. Hence the sensationization of global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The next ice age was only a few months away. Now they've gone to the other extreme with little or no scientific evidence to back it up.

I'm not saying that there is no scientific evidence, but in my opinion it is very much incomplete. Christopher Columbus came to North America during the end of a "mini" ice age. Where was the scientfic data then? What about the monitoring stations in western Europe during the Industrial Revolution?

I'm not advocating a "wait and see" stance. I'm just tired of the paranoia that the media and Al Gore are generating. Mr. Gore stands to make millions of dollars for doing nothing. Carbon credits are a load of crap. He and a few others will make money without doing a thing for the environment.

Not only that but the president even stated that if we pass thislegislation it will do little to combat global warming. All it will do is make people money and if there was man-made global warming it would do nothing for it.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304609#post15304609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joshsmit56001
There is just as much scientific data supporting the opposition to global warming but this information is not reported by the media once again because of the leftward lean.

The number one reason why the earth's climate changes is the sun. The global warming crowd tends to completely overlook the effects of the sun. Climate change has been existent since the birth of the earth and C02 Gases have not been the culprit for these changes, the sun has been the main reason. As others have stated earlier in the post, the data that we have regarding C02 and earth temperatures is a drop in the bucket compared to the life of the earth. The only thing that has been fairly consistent during the life of the earth has been the sun. As was stated earlier, the oceans have risen and fallen with time as has earths temperature. Climate is cyclical and anyone who says differently has a false sense of climate change. One volcano blows more "pollution" into the atmosphere than mankind has in our history, yet earth's various systems work together and clean things up. Do you actually believe that in the case of 38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air, with only 1 new molecule added every 5 years or so, is going to be the unmitigated disaster that Al Gore and those prone to spontaneous goregasm insist? C02 is less then 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere and of that, only about 25% of that is man made. Why can't the global warming cultists understand how absolutely insignificant that is?????

the ratio that you talked of earlier may sound insignificant, but it realy isn't. this process grows worse exponentialy.

as the climate gets warmer, more water vapor is created, as more water vapor is create more heat is contained, heating the earth further. this is a realy simple example, but throw in the frozen methan under the ocean that will soon start evaporating, resulting in giant blooms of green house gases, and many other effects as yet uknown or unrememberable at the time to me, this is truly a serious and scientificaly backed problem.

check out this site, the research appears clean of endowments, and he makes no conclusion that supports any reasonable side.

http://www.nyas.org/annals/pdf/v1134_guinotte.pdf the server isn't recognising the website, if anyone has trouble, please post so i know it isn't just me, and if anyone can find the real one, please post a link, thanks you.

 

[ctenophors rule]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
The point is the the news media and politicians need to sell themselves. Hence the sensationization of global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The next ice age was only a few months away. Now they've gone to the other extreme with little or no scientific evidence to back it up.

what do you mean little or no scientific background? if you have educated yourswelf enough to comment, than you should know which it is you choose to site.

personaly, i can't make a better case than green bean, all the evidence needed has been listed, now you are choosing not to believe simply on principle, unless you can please give me a solid, fact based reason not to believe this. i love to be proved wrong.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
I'm not saying that there is no scientific evidence, but in my opinion it is very much incomplete. Christopher Columbus came to North America during the end of a "mini" ice age. Where was the scientfic data then? What about the monitoring stations in western Europe during the Industrial Revolution?

so, now their is scientific data, just not reliable.....gotcha. i think greenbean answers this one as well. and chris columbus never landed on North America. one of those things that the teach in begining history, then it changes with each new level. just like in begining math the say you can't do 4-5, but in prealgebra(and usualy before) we leanr t equals -1.

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
I'm not advocating a "wait and see" stance. I'm just tired of the paranoia that the media and Al Gore are generating. Mr. Gore stands to make millions of dollars for doing nothing. Carbon credits are a load of crap. He and a few others will make money without doing a thing for the environment.

al gore has done a considerable amount for the environment, he has done more than any person who merely volunteers, or picks up garbage from the beach. because he has educated millions. even if every single person who watched the documentary only recycled for one day, he alone, still removed more plastic from the environment, than 1,000 beach combers combined.(being real conservative wth the guestimation.

so doesn't he deserve to get a little something something?:bum:

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304609#post15304609 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joshsmit56001
There is just as much scientific data supporting the opposition to global warming but this information is not reported by the media once again because of the leftward lean.

The number one reason why the earth's climate changes is the sun. The global warming crowd tends to completely overlook the effects of the sun. Climate change has been existent since the birth of the earth and C02 Gases have not been the culprit for these changes, the sun has been the main reason. As others have stated earlier in the post, the data that we have regarding C02 and earth temperatures is a drop in the bucket compared to the life of the earth. The only thing that has been fairly consistent during the life of the earth has been the sun. As was stated earlier, the oceans have risen and fallen with time as has earths temperature. Climate is cyclical and anyone who says differently has a false sense of climate change. One volcano blows more "pollution" into the atmosphere than mankind has in our history, yet earth's various systems work together and clean things up. Do you actually believe that in the case of 38 molecules of CO2 out of every 100,000 molecules of air, with only 1 new molecule added every 5 years or so, is going to be the unmitigated disaster that Al Gore and those prone to spontaneous goregasm insist? C02 is less then 1/2 of 1 percent of the atmosphere and of that, only about 25% of that is man made. Why can't the global warming cultists understand how absolutely insignificant that is?????

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
The point is the the news media and politicians need to sell themselves. Hence the sensationization of global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The next ice age was only a few months away. Now they've gone to the other extreme with little or no scientific evidence to back it up.

I'm not saying that there is no scientific evidence, but in my opinion it is very much incomplete. Christopher Columbus came to North America during the end of a "mini" ice age. Where was the scientfic data then? What about the monitoring stations in western Europe during the Industrial Revolution?

You two don't even bother to read a whopping 3 page thread. What's the point in arguing with you? Thank god the bean has the patience of a kindergarten teacher, because I had my fill of this rigmarole a long time ago.

 

[RedSkaNite]

I'm pretty conservative (Libertarian). Since I was a child, the media bias in this country has always been pretty blatant to me. Being a naturally contrary person, I believe this is one of the factors that steered me towards my particular political view.

Global warming has always been a bit of a sticky wicket for me. It is obvious to me that the spewing of huge amounts of pollution into our environment is a BAD THING. It is also obvious that lefties latch onto eco stuff like a religion and there is just no good info to be gotten from folks who have faith in something rather than skepticism.

Adding to the problem is the fact that global warming fits so neatly into our political schism in this country. Supporting global warming meshes greatly with the goals of the left, while denying it meshes well with the right. So even while I am more towards the right...well I never trusted those guys either. I have always believed that once you have an iron in the fire, you lose credibility. There are so many irons in this fire that it is hard to see the flames.

So, what I am trying to do here is to thank you, Greenbean. I DON'T study the climate change science. I hear about it every day and summarily reject 99% of the crap hear, because it is always just that, crap. Cute teenage girls crying over pictures of dead polar bears and right wing radio hosts treating fringe scientists as if they were credible both have no effect on me. For the first time I have been exposed to a valid argument that counters the one I have always intuitively believed. You haven't convinced me that we are causing this, you have convinced me that there is a chance that we might be causing this. Thank you!

 

[jdhuyvetter]

The point I was trying to make with my comment "little or no scientific data" was with regards to the big picture. The earth has been around for millions of years. The study of the Earth's climate has been around for a few decades (with accurate scientific equipment).

There are no scientific "facts" that shows what caused the various ice ages or subsequent global warming. Only hypothesis and theory. So, how can we conclusively prove that this is causing global warming, or that is causing global cooling. We can't. Conjecture at best.

That having been said, I offer the following.

1: We should recycle? Yes. Should we try to reduce our greenhouse gas emission? Yes. We should all be more enviromentally conscientious and responsible. To that end, I do give Al Gore credit for raising awareness.

2: His documentary is loaded with lies. Not conjecture or hypothesis, LIES. Opening sequence is from another movie (computer generated at that!). If all of the ice in Greenland melted, the sea level would only go up a couple of inches, not several feet, etc. My favorite is the British Supreme Court ruling on the film. I have huge issues with the man's ethics. He has a do as I say, not as I do attitude. (Take for instance his personal residence and the associated heating/cooling costs. George Bush's ranch in Crawford was geothermally heated and cooled).

Now, I want to quote RedSkaNite, "there is a chance that we might be causing this" I agree. However, are we warming or cooling? The most recent data I have seen shows that the last couple of years have "cooled". Of course, I did get this from the nightly news.............

 

[jdhuyvetter]

Oh, before everyone rips me, I was only using the analogy of the Gore/Bush residences to back up my point (do as I say, not as I do). I was not trying to be pro or con to either political party.

 

[jdhuyvetter]

Oh yeah, one more thing...............

My reef tank is lit with solar tubes. Is yours?

 

[billsreef]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15304622#post15304622 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by jdhuyvetter
The point is the the news media and politicians need to sell themselves. Hence the sensationization of global warming. In the 1970's it was global cooling. The next ice age was only a few months away. Now they've gone to the other extreme with little or no scientific evidence to back it up.

This actually raises a really good point as to why the media and politicians should really be ignored and why one should really take the time to look at the scientific literature. I've been around long enough to remember the call for the next ice age of the 70's, it was only a mere handful of crackpots back than. Yet the media ran with it. However, if you take a look at the scientific literature (Greenbean did this and posted the numbers quite awhile back) you will find that the overwhelming majority of climate research at that time was actually calling for warming...not cooling like the media would have you believe.

Of the more recent "studies" that claim we are in a cooling trend, all of the ones I've looked at have played the nasty little trick of picking and choosing their data sets to begin with a particularly high spike in the the global temperature record that occurred in the 90's...so anything after that point looks like a cooling trend, even if it's actually warming for most of those years If you choose to go with data sets going back 20, 30 or more years, including that spike (and other spikes, both up and down) you will see a definite warming trend over the long haul. Go back far enough, and you'll see a disturbingly drastic increase in the rate of that warming trend.

As to the idea that climate scientists are forgetting about things like normal cycles and the sun, etc. ...well that is just plain ludicrous. While the media might forget such things, the climatologists are not

 

[Joshsmit56001]

There is no point in discussing this any further because like you say their is a complete consensous on the fact that humans are the cause of climate change and it is not just a natural occurence over time. It has once again come down to if enough people say it is true and keep repeating it, everyone will then start to believe it is true as well.

THANK YOU AL GORE!!!!!!

 

[ctenophors rule]

the sea will actualy rise the multiple feet, closer to 20 in florida i have heard from ned smith? at a lecture in HBOI.

you sea the poles act like a water magnet. near the poles the water bulges, so when the ice melts, the water that is atracted to the ice will disperse as well creating a much higher change in sea level. i say change because the sealevel in the polar regions will lower.

 

[HippieSmell]

<a href=showthread.php?s=&postid=15307774#post15307774 target=_blank>Originally posted</a> by Joshsmit56001
There is no point in discussing this any further because like you say their is a complete consensous on the fact that humans are the cause of climate change and it is not just a natural occurence over time. It has once again come down to if enough people say it is true and keep repeating it, everyone will then start to believe it is true as well.

THANK YOU AL GORE!!!!!!

No, there is no point in discussing this any further with YOU, because you don't bother reading anything that doesn't have a giant elephant sticker on it. Understanding this issue will take some effort on your part, and you'll never put in the time I'm afraid. Good thing there are more informed people making decisions for you.

 

[ctenophors rule]

wow this has taken a turn or the worse, i would like to quote the great, and sadly late, john lenon "give peace a chance", leave the politics out of the conversation, and this will have a much better outcome.

i have noticed, though, that the liberals are bringing more fact into this, so i wouldl ike to see some statistics that support the conservatives, just using a different context. this, as apposed to just saying "liberals do this" and "republicans do that" because that accomplishes nuthing.

 

[billsreef]

Interesting thing seems to happen in most of these discussions. There are those of us that talk about the science, and actually have read the peer reviewed articles and looked at the data to come to our own conclusions...and interestingly we tend to agree with each other and the conclusion that we are having an effect on the climate. Then there are those that seem to have come to an opposing conclusion and keep bringing up the media and political figures that have absolutely nothing to do with the question of are we having an effect on the climate. The problem with talking politics, is that now we go into the realm of emotion and opinion that tends to bring out the wost in people, hence the reason talk of politics is not allowed on RC.