Climate change
- Thread starter Pete
- Start date
Hi Craig,
Ah, understood, no worries at all. I'm a little slow in picking up on subtle ribbing!
A good debate going on here - very interesting to see the various perspectives!
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the NOAA is a Department of the US government. And none of the bonehead politicians sees fit to take the NOAA's advice? Nahhh, it couldn't be all of the Cap & Trade tax revenue, ya think?
Again, cooling periods occur, it's the longer trend that is at issue. Also, note that many
states had above average temps, and overall, the country was drier. Also, while this
summer was the 34th coolest on record for the US, last year was the 8th hottest. Again,
the overall trend is hotter.
Also, the US is not the world. Globally, the combined land and ocean temp for July was
5th highest on record, with the global surface ocean temp being the highest on record, and
global land temp tied for 9th highest on record. This is also from the NOAA report.
State of the Climate
Ian
"Again, cooling periods occur, it's the longer trend that is at issue."
Why is it when the recent data moves in your favor (you = believers in global warming), there is a crisis that requires immediate attention ....and when it moves against your position, oh that happens but we really need to look at the longer trend.
The data is pretty clear after 100 years of monitoring, and the trend has been pretty flat. Getting all excited over 2 degrees or less temperature change from one year to the next does nothing but cause people to jump to conclusions and encourage the media to write stories about the imminent end of the world. If you use the data taken more than 100 years ago (yes that data does exist), it actually shows we went into a couple cooling periods during the 1900's. This resulted in the theory of a returning Ice Age during the 1970's. 40 years later we have global warming.
Given the changes in society over the past 300 years (and yes there is there were scientists recording temperature data in the 1600's), and the general lack of change in temperature change from then to now (I'm looking at the longer trend and not these pesky shorter warming and cooling periods) .... just exactly how much change in society are you willing to accept in the name of this theory? My answer is NO NEW TAXES.
While you are at it, if you can point out the things we weren't doing in the 1950s, 60's and 70's - that was causing the earth to be colder then and cause the Ice Age fear. And show me what we are doing now that is 180 degrees opposite of that to now cause warming - I would not only appreciate it, but probably switch to your point of view.
I believe in doing what we can to clean up after ourselves, recycle, and try to reduce our footprint on nature. Unfortunately (or not, depending or one's view) there aren't too many countries looking to radically decrease their population.
Gregg
Why is it when the recent data moves in your favor (you = believers in global warming), there is a crisis that requires immediate attention ....and when it moves against your position, oh that happens but we really need to look at the longer trend.
The data is pretty clear after 100 years of monitoring, and the trend has been pretty flat. Getting all excited over 2 degrees or less temperature change from one year to the next does nothing but cause people to jump to conclusions and encourage the media to write stories about the imminent end of the world. If you use the data taken more than 100 years ago (yes that data does exist), it actually shows we went into a couple cooling periods during the 1900's. This resulted in the theory of a returning Ice Age during the 1970's. 40 years later we have global warming.
Given the changes in society over the past 300 years (and yes there is there were scientists recording temperature data in the 1600's), and the general lack of change in temperature change from then to now (I'm looking at the longer trend and not these pesky shorter warming and cooling periods) .... just exactly how much change in society are you willing to accept in the name of this theory? My answer is NO NEW TAXES.
While you are at it, if you can point out the things we weren't doing in the 1950s, 60's and 70's - that was causing the earth to be colder then and cause the Ice Age fear. And show me what we are doing now that is 180 degrees opposite of that to now cause warming - I would not only appreciate it, but probably switch to your point of view.
I believe in doing what we can to clean up after ourselves, recycle, and try to reduce our footprint on nature. Unfortunately (or not, depending or one's view) there aren't too many countries looking to radically decrease their population.
Gregg
If you look back over this thread, I've been saying the same thing over and over, as
have the scientists to work with the data. Again, looking at the temps over the past
century, the overall climb has gotten steeper.
I know the data exists because I have seen it, worked with it, and generated graphs and
charts with it.
You must not have been looking to hard, the temps have risen. Since 1850, the overall
rise has been about 1 degree, and the rise has been pretty systematically increasing
since the late 17th century (just before the Industrial Revolution, and the increase
in CO2 in the air). There was a brief sharp decline in the 1800s, but we have "recovered"
from that pretty handily. And, while 1 degree F doesn't sound like much, but it is amazing
how such a small change affects things.
Not sure how anyone is going to figure out how to deal with population growth, what
we can do is try to minimize its affect.
Ian
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Scott,
Surely these reports of a cooler earth must be wrong? Probably promulgated by racist, red neck, right wing, gun mad journalists.:stunned:
Surely these reports of a cooler earth must be wrong? Probably promulgated by racist, red neck, right wing, gun mad journalists.:stunned:
Yes, must be Pete 
And now for a brilliant idea that will surely help save humanity, I bring you the hipocrisy of the intelligentsia....
Prince Charles urges people to abandon car in favour of walking and public transport - Telegraph
And now for a brilliant idea that will surely help save humanity, I bring you the hipocrisy of the intelligentsia....
Prince Charles urges people to abandon car in favour of walking and public transport - Telegraph
And ... ?
The first link has the final paragraphs discussing a researcher who believes a combination
of factors affect the Earth's temp, and that the recent spike in the 80's does not correlate
well with solar activity, but sure does line up with CO2. Nothing new.
The second link says that Colorado is now seeing "normal" weather, whereas the previous
eight years have been abnormally above average. Again, the periodic cooling has been noted
before, but the overall rise is predominant.
Ian
Pete McCluskey.
Lifetime Supporter
Yes, must be Pete
And now for a brilliant idea that will surely help save humanity, I bring you the hypocrisy of the intelligentsia....
Prince Charles urges people to abandon car in favour of walking and public transport - Telegraph
Only I would not number Prince Chazza among the intelligentsia. Perhaps you meant aristocracy?
Global Cooling is Here
It's interesting that many people point out the turn of the 20th century as having larger temperature extremes than now and using that as an argument against current climate change. Remember that industrialization at the time was going like gang-busters with absolutely no effort on various forms of pollution (particulate, heat, etc...) We have gotten better, but population keeps increasing and other countries (very large ones) have only begun to really accelerate in industrialization. Personally, I think it behooves us to play it smart this time and put a little effort up front to keep tabs on the same things we learned the first time, especially since the pollution base is much larger now.
I think we can all agree that countries like Mexico, China, and India, who have industrialized
so quickly and without any concern to the environment, are a big issue.
Again, years back, I was contracted to support a climate research group. This group was
particularly interested in what was going on in India (this was in the late 90's through early
2000s). They went out into the middle of the Indian Ocean, to a small island Kaashidhoo in
the Maldives to study how the rapid industrialization in India affected the small islands far
to the south. The results were astonishing. They found clouds trapped under a thick layer
of pollution, pollution almost entirely caused by India's unchecked industry.
INDOEX - News
Ian
I somewhat understand the impetus behind the pro global warming people. Some people honestly believe that there is global warming and not a natural phenomenon, but a lot of global warming people stand to make incredible amounts of money. While the natural phenomenon people won't profit at all. It seems strange that so many natural phenomenon scientist would stake their reputations for no monetary gain. The second problem is that by enforcing CAP & Trade with strict CO2 standards, the worlds temperature is supposed to cool by less than one degree by 2050. What happens if the arctic cap is thicker than ever in 2050, do we get a tax refund? I'm all for a clean earth, but this seems more for the money than any earth saving good will.
I normally like someone to kiss me before doing this to me!
I normally like someone to kiss me before doing this to me!
Come on Al, do you really think they do this for no monetary gain? More than likely
they are either already getting paid for their research, or are hoping to get their
research funded, gain some credence or notoriety to their reputation so they can
improve their chances of getting research dollars and/or more prestigious positions.
As someone who has dealt with academic researchers on a professional level for the
past 15+ years, this kind of research has some sort of money trail attached to it.
Ian
I'm not talking about short term monetary gain or notoriety, Al (the baloon) Gore will be the first global warming billionaire if cap and trade goes through. From 2001 his net worth has gone from $1.2 million to $12 million now, not bad in 8 years, wish I had a stock that performed that well. All of this on a MAYBE, not a DEFINITE MAYBE, just a MAYBE! And when it doesn't happen the taxes will roll on. I would like to see some solid, documented proof, not a bunch of BS graphs made by the UN and Al "the baloon". The only thing I see is money, LOTS of money.
I'm not talking short term either - Nobel Prize, long term research funding, tenured faculty
position, book deals, etc.
I don't think we'll ever see "solid, irrefutable" proof in our lifetime, but we can get as
close to it as possible. And, by the time we get the technology and understanding to
provide "solid, irrefutable" proof, it may very well be too late. And that is a gamble I'd
rather not take.
And that is what it boils down to. Are you willing to gamble on the future? There are
two options, and each with two results. Refuse the science as it stands now and
refuse the programs in place, and either you're right and no harm done, or you're wrong
and the climate and environment are in even worse shape. Regardless, more pollutants
enter our atmosphere. Or, accept the science as it stands now and accept the programs
in place, and if you're right, we have a cleaner planet and a more stable climate, or you're
wrong, you've spent the dollars, the climate hasn't improved, but the environment is still
cleaner since the pollutants have been reduced.
I vote the latter - a cleaner environment is always a better option.
Ian
OK let's say we do it! Does it have to tax us to death? It's not that we will maybe be doing something worthwhile, it's the greedy tax hungry illegitimate children that are running the countries. If it was purely an earth saving deal without subjecting the citizens to yearly proctologist visits after tax time, I don't have a problem with it, but that's not the case!
