Add Reply
Add Comment As A Guest
Close Topic OptionsGlobal Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 23 of 71
Well, we predicted this would come out sooner - Page 23 - Politics, Business, Civil, History - Posted: 7th Jan, 2008 - 2:43pm
Posts: 564 - Views: 83921
Global warming has been in and out as the "latest" hot topic for many years. It is, according to modern scientists, the result of man-made industrial pollutants, clearing forested areas, agriculture, etc. But now they are thinking it started way before the Industrial Revolution...Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 23
A Hollywood actor said just over 10 years ago that our oceans were were being ruined and we would all perish in 10 years because of it. His name was Sean Penn and he is just as irrelevant today as his idea was then.
It is well known by us who listen to reason that there are as many scientist that believe GW is a bunch of hogwash. It is also well known that most of the scientist that spout GW do so to get their coveted government grants. They do so for a continual payday. I just heard the new Prime Minister of Australia's government refused to sign onto the idea of GW for for his country when he heard what it was going to cost in rising electricity prices. You hit the nail exactly square on the head when you repeated the line
| QUOTE |
| the atmosphere is too big and we are too irrelevant |
GW is nothing but a well crafted plan by the old 60s hippies to create fear, grow government, and stay in power. Now I'm sure the sky will fall someday, but not in the next few million years. But the worm is turning. Less and less people are buying into GW. In a few years GW will be laughed at like the hippies that invented it. As a matter of fact I'm already laughing.
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 102 
10.2%
Sponsored Links:
Man-made Natural Warming Global
Our oceans are being ruined, but they aren't drying up? If Penn said that he is an idiot and should stick to acting. Furthermore why does an actor know about the environment, who cares what Sean Penn thinks.
Mousetrails said:
| QUOTE |
| I just heard the new Prime Minister of Australia's government refused to sign onto the idea of GW for for his country when he heard what it was going to cost in rising electricity prices. |
I think you must have heard wrong. Kevin Rudd has agreed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol even though it is too late. What he didn't do was set a concrete target for emission reductions, although he said it would be in the range of 25-40 percent and this would be determined soon. We shall see soon enough what his true credentials are on the climate change issue.
There is no doubt that global warming is existing, I think we have moved past that point in the debate. I'm sure there are also scientists who are making a lot of money out of it.
Tim Flannery is not one of them and was making a lot of money well before the climate change phenomenon.
 Message Edited...LDS_forever: I just fixed your quote tags. |
International Level: Negotiator / Political Participation: 453 45.3%
Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics
Penn said it and everybody swallowed it because he was a big time Hollywood actor........idiot.
I was listening to the news from Australia as I was writing that post. I guess the US news has it all wrong about the Prime Minister backing out when he heard the cost, but I'll keep listening.
| QUOTE |
| There is no doubt that global warming is existing, I think we have moved past that point in the debate. |
You remind me of a man I discussed the Bible with one day. He said, "God said it. I believe it. End of conversation!"
I believe there is not only no global warming, but that "debate" is a waste of time. Don't ever forget the battle cry of the 60s hippies, "The sky is falling, the sky is falling!"
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 102 10.2%
Post Date: 29th Dec, 2007 - 11:50pm / Post ID: #
NOTE: News [?]
Page 23 Man-made Natural Warming Global
Global warming to alter Calif. landscape
LOS ANGELES - California is defined by its scenery, from the mountains that enchanted John Muir to the wine country and beaches that define its culture around the world. But as scientists try to forecast how global warming might affect the nation's most geographically diverse state, they envision a landscape that could look quite different by the end of this century, if not sooner.
Ref. https://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071229/ap_on_...ange_california
Man-made Natural Warming Global
Haven't you heard? It's not Global Warming any more, it's Global Climate Change. That way the fanatics can cover all their bases whether they're freezing, or burning. I found what is probably the answer to the question of global climate change. First and foremost it is cyclical. It comes and goes like summer and winter and this website will show you why they missed their dire predictions for hurricanes these last two seasons. It will also give you a pretty good guess why the midwest is freezing this winter.
https://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap071203.html
We are in "Solar Minimum" at this time, but never fear "warmies" solar maximum is only 5 years away and you can start scaring earth people again with "warming" stories.
I'm reminded of an old saying, "This too shall pass." Maybe if we who have seen global warming and COOLING come and go before are patient, the "warming" crowd will grow old with us and be quiet until it's time to worry about Global Cooling."
International Level: Politician / Political Participation: 102 10.2%
Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?
Not only is there apparently an 11 year cycle, there is also a 200 year cycle according to some scientist. This scientist from Russia has some interesting suggestions that will have some PETA members foaming at the mouth:
https://en.rian.ru/analysis/20080103/94768732.html
| QUOTE |
| A cold spell soon to replace global warming 13:54 | 03/ 01/ 2008 MOSCOW. (Oleg Sorokhtin for RIA Novosti) - Stock up on fur coats and felt boots! This is my paradoxical advice to the warm world. Earth is now at the peak of one of its passing warm spells. It started in the 17th century when there was no industrial influence on the climate to speak of and no such thing as the hothouse effect. The current warming is evidently a natural process and utterly independent of hothouse gases. The real reasons for climate changes are uneven solar radiation, terrestrial precession (that is, axis gyration), instability of oceanic currents, regular salinity fluctuations of the Arctic Ocean surface waters, etc. There is another, principal reason-solar activity and luminosity. The greater they are the warmer is our climate. Astrophysics knows two solar activity cycles, of 11 and 200 years. Both are caused by changes in the radius and area of the irradiating solar surface. The latest data, obtained by Habibullah Abdusamatov, head of the Pulkovo Observatory space research laboratory, say that Earth has passed the peak of its warmer period, and a fairly cold spell will set in quite soon, by 2012. Real cold will come when solar activity reaches its minimum, by 2041, and will last for 50-60 years or even longer. This is my point, which environmentalists hotly dispute as they cling to the hothouse theory. As we know, hothouse gases, in particular, nitrogen peroxide, warm up the atmosphere by keeping heat close to the ground. Advanced in the late 19th century by Svante A. Arrhenius, a Swedish physical chemist and Nobel Prize winner, this theory is taken for granted to this day and has not undergone any serious check. It determines decisions and instruments of major international organizations-in particular, the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Signed by 150 countries, it exemplifies the impact of scientific delusion on big politics and economics. The authors and enthusiasts of the Kyoto Protocol based their assumptions on an erroneous idea. As a result, developed countries waste huge amounts of money to fight industrial pollution of the atmosphere. What if it is a Don Quixote's duel with the windmill? Hothouse gases may not be to blame for global warming. At any rate, there is no scientific evidence to their guilt. The classic hothouse effect scenario is too simple to be true. As things really are, much more sophisticated processes are on in the atmosphere, especially in its dense layer. For instance, heat is not so much radiated in space as carried by air currents-an entirely different mechanism, which cannot cause global warming. The temperature of the troposphere, the lowest and densest portion of the atmosphere, does not depend on the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions-a point proved theoretically and empirically. True, probes of Antarctic ice shield, taken with bore specimens in the vicinity of the Russian research station Vostok, show that there are close links between atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide and temperature changes. Here, however, we cannot be quite sure which is the cause and which the effect. Temperature fluctuations always run somewhat ahead of carbon dioxide concentration changes. This means that warming is primary. The ocean is the greatest carbon dioxide depository, with concentrations 60-90 times larger than in the atmosphere. When the ocean's surface warms up, it produces the "champagne effect." Compare a foamy spurt out of a warm bottle with wine pouring smoothly when served properly cold. Likewise, warm ocean water exudes greater amounts of carbonic acid, which evaporates to add to industrial pollution-a factor we cannot deny. However, man-caused pollution is negligible here. If industrial pollution with carbon dioxide keeps at its present-day 5-7 billion metric tons a year, it will not change global temperatures up to the year 2100. The change will be too small for humans to feel even if the concentration of greenhouse gas emissions doubles. Carbon dioxide cannot be bad for the climate. On the contrary, it is food for plants, and so is beneficial to life on Earth. Bearing out this point was the Green Revolution-the phenomenal global increase in farm yields in the mid-20th century. Numerous experiments also prove a direct proportion between harvest and carbon dioxide concentration in the air. Carbon dioxide has quite a different pernicious influence-not on the climate but on synoptic activity. It absorbs infrared radiation. When tropospheric air is warm enough for complete absorption, radiation energy passes into gas fluctuations. Gas expands and dissolves to send warm air up to the stratosphere, where it clashes with cold currents coming down. With no noticeable temperature changes, synoptic activity skyrockets to whip up cyclones and anticyclones. Hence we get hurricanes, storms, tornados and other natural disasters, whose intensity largely depends on carbon dioxide concentration. In this sense, reducing its concentration in the air will have a positive effect. Carbon dioxide is not to blame for global climate change. Solar activity is many times more powerful than the energy produced by the whole of humankind. Man's influence on nature is a drop in the ocean. Earth is unlikely to ever face a temperature disaster. Of all the planets in the solar system, only Earth has an atmosphere beneficial to life. There are many factors that account for development of life on Earth: Sun is a calm star, Earth is located an optimum distance from it, it has the Moon as a massive satellite, and many others. Earth owes its friendly climate also to dynamic feedback between biotic and atmospheric evolution. The principal among those diverse links is Earth's reflective power, which regulates its temperature. A warm period, as the present, increases oceanic evaporation to produce a great amount of clouds, which filter solar radiation and so bring heat down. Things take the contrary turn in a cold period. What can't be cured must be endured. It is wise to accept the natural course of things. We have no reason to panic about allegations that ice in the Arctic Ocean is thawing rapidly and will soon vanish altogether. As it really is, scientists say the Arctic and Antarctic ice shields are growing. Physical and mathematical calculations predict a new Ice Age. It will come in 100,000 years, at the earliest, and will be much worse than the previous. Europe will be ice-bound, with glaciers reaching south of Moscow. Meanwhile, Europeans can rest assured. The Gulf Stream will change its course only if some evil magic robs it of power to reach the north-but Mother Nature is unlikely to do that. Dr. Oleg Sorokhtin, Merited Scientist of Russia and fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, is staff researcher of the Oceanology Institute. |
Not too comforting. Basically, he says we are screwed and there is not a great deal we can do about it, so stock up on dry goods, get comfortable shoes and a nice fur coat. When I read things like this, I actually want to be on the global warming side more because it would give me the hope that I can change something. Honestly though, when I read more and more reports, I come to a conclusion much like that above...down filled parkas are nice!
International Level: International Guru / Political Participation: 863 86.3%
Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 23
I doubt you'll have to worry about it, Vincenzo. Most of us will be long gone in 100,000 years!
The only point I disagree with is where he says we shouldn't worry about industrial pollution. Of course we should! We know pollution is harmful - that's a no-brainer, really; we should do all we can to find ways to reduce pollution as much as possible, and not just greenhouse gases.
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 23
Well, we predicted this would come out sooner or later.
| QUOTE |
| Changes in the Sun's Surface to Bring Next Climate Change January 2, 2008 Today, the Space and Science Research Center, (SSRC) in Orlando, Florida announces that it has confirmed the recent web announcement of NASA solar physicists that there are substantial changes occurring in the sun's surface. The SSRC has further researched these changes and has concluded they will bring about the next climate change to one of a long lasting cold era. Today, Director of the SSRC, John Casey has reaffirmed earlier research he led that independently discovered the sun's changes are the result of a family of cycles that bring about climate shifts from cold climate to warm and back again. "We today confirm the recent announcement by NASA that there are historic and important changes taking place on the sun's surface. This will have only one outcome - a new climate change is coming that will bring an extended period of deep cold to the planet. This is not however a unique event for the planet although it is critically important news to this and the next generations. It is but the normal sequence of alternating climate changes that has been going on for thousands of years. Further according to our research, this series of solar cycles are so predictable that they can be used to roughly forecast the next series of climate changes many decades in advance. I have verified the accuracy of these cycles" behavior over the last 1,100 years relative to temperatures on Earth, to well over 90%." |
https://www.spaceandscience.net/id16.html
I tried connecting to NASA website for the "recent announcement" but it's not loading this morning. I'll try again later.
International Level: Ambassador / Political Participation: 595 59.5%
TOPIC: Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?