We?re cooked. Figuratively and literally,,,
?The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change
update: link no longer working,
google "The panel predicted temperature rises of"
Just an alarmist report issued by a bunch of socialist, power-hungry elite. Just look who sponsored it. The United Nations. The biggest bunch of New World Order / World Government promoters that ever existed on the planet.
They want to control your freedom, population, energy usage, military and wealth.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Watch the video, and see the truth:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm
Then, if you are a scientist with at least a BS education, please sign the online petition.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 02, 2007, 06:40:39 AM
Just an alarmist report issued by a bunch of socialist, power-hungry elite. Just look who sponered it. The United Nations. The biggest bunch of New World Order / World Government promoters that ever existed on the planet.
They want to control your freedom, population, energy usage, military and wealth.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Watch the video, and see the truth:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm
Then, if you are a scientist with at least a BS education, please sign the online petition.
You just have to look at the artic shelf
To see that something drastic is happening.
Abstract
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2007/2006GL027977.shtml
so what there talking about is vast reservoirs of methane ice, a greenhouse gas.
The worry is that this will start to gas as the ocean?s temperature Increases. the problem is that it could ?run away?
Ice shelf?s
"It is consistent with climate change," Vincent said, adding that the remaining ice shelves are 90 percent smaller than when they were first discovered in 1906.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003500731_webiceshelf29.html
Btw, the story from the link I originally put up changed
So here is the original story (mostly the same though)
?The world's leading climate scientists? ,,,,, "It's very conservative?
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070202/ap_on_sc/france_climate_change_31
Resinrat2,
How do you explain spring weather in January?
There are greedy vicious people and organizations who would twist everything to their advantage global warming or cooling.
I am afraid we are all on the edge of slippery slope even, the people who manipulate the governments and the financial systems.
Global warming may or may not be due to human activities but pollution and willful destruction of the earth definitely is.
AM
Its very easy for us all to speculate and have opinions, but those things are not important to the issue. The real important issue is there are many things in action right now that could have the potential to wipe out the human race as we know it. While we are believed to be the most advanced form of life to ever inhabbit this planet, we are also equally as vournable as any other species. If the end is coming it won't be evil men who doom us all, it'll be our own apathy...
~Dingus
Not everyone agrees:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Over 17000 scientists have signed the petition so far:
http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p31.htm
It takes much more evidence to conclude the so called "fact" of global warming.
Just don't give away your freedoms so easily. Everybody who says they are your friend is not necessarily so.
Over the last week in the Midwest USA it has been in the teens and below zero (Degrees F.) We are freezing our bald spots off.
The easiest way to get people to give away their freedoms is with alarmist propaganda. Do you want the United Nations to control YOU! I know I sure don't.
That's why I am here. I want to help develop the energy sources that will free mankind from these power hungry lunatics; and I mean EVERYBODY. Poor nations, rich nations, and every nation in between. Energy influences wealth, freedom, war, and human technological advancement.
We need much, much more long-term data than is available right now. Just relax, and try to get us all off the energy-slavery system.
Thank you for your interest.
Well not all of us are talking about 'man made' global warming. I'm under the assumption that while greenhouse gasses can build up and trap photons in the atmosphere, I'm more worried about the polar shift and ocean dead spots.
UN, WTO, NWO; They're all trying to cripple our sovernty, but don't let that fool you in to believing they aren't willing to watch the world cook to control the populations.
~Dingus
Quote from: Dingus Mungus on February 07, 2007, 04:21:18 PM
Well not all of us are talking about 'man made' global warming. I'm under the assumption that while greenhouse gasses can build up and trap photons in the atmosphere, I'm more worried about the polar shift and ocean dead spots.
UN, WTO, NWO; They're all trying to cripple our sovernty, but don't let that fool you in to believing they aren't willing to watch the world cook to control the populations.
~Dingus
If you beleve in UN, WTO, NWO's intentions, you then know their success will be short lived. I in fact look forward to the pole shift and the magnetic field flipping.
AM
Personally I think the sooner we stop polluting the better. Global warming may be unstoppable, or maybe not. After Studying global warming on and off for 20 years, all I can say is the obvious: pollution of the air, land or water, if we do it enough, can and will have an effect on the environment which we are kind of reliant upon. So lets stop polluting now, and stop waiting to see how hot it gets before we realize we've f**ked up and we really should have done something about it years ago.
I would also have to agree with Steve. Even if the world isn't heating up, we are draining a much needed natural resource, and pollution may be responsible for more problems than just the climate.
~Dingus
No matter what, its time for change!
Just for the record.
The implication is always that anyone opposed to Kyoto type controls is a reckless and selfish ignoramus who doesn't give a bit about the planet. Let me tell you that I have studied this issue far more than you can imagine. I also have a son, who I want to grow up and raise a family some day; but I also know human nature. There are evil and power-hungry people in offices of government and power that want nothing more than to control every aspect of your lives. This is no "conspiracy-theory" paranoid thinking. It is a realistic view of the world. Anyone who believes that people in government and oil-money influence can conspiratorially stop over-unity research should be able to easily understand why the issue of so called global warming can be used to control everyone on the planet as well.
I don't want the planet poisoned with pollution either. Why do you think I am putting so much effort into hydrogen research? Just don't fall for the alarmist cries for more control over your lives. The easiest way to get people to give up their freedoms is with a crisis, and a global-death crisis is the scariest thing next to an atomic war. By the way, this morning I woke up to -7 deg.F temperatures. Here in the Midwest USA we are near record cold temps. We have people dying in the cold.
Once you give away a freedom, you NEVER get it back without a big fight. I agree it is time for change; but we still have time. The UN, WTO, etc. only care about controlling YOUR life. They will still be driving around in their big vehicles, eating their banquets and flying their private jets. Their freedoms won't be affected, but yours will; and you didn't elect a single one of them now did you? Just remember who you are listening to and dealing with.
One more thing. Get down on your knees, humble yourself, and ask Almighty God for guidance. If that destroys my credibility in your mind then think of it this way: It sure won't hurt you one way or the other, but it just might help us all.
Your so right Resonrat.. Meanwhile China the biggest contributor to pollution on this planet is exempt form all this. Europe and the north Americas are to lower there standard of living, Whilst china pollutes the planet and becomes the new "Rich nation" and super power, It is not pollution IMO, The earth gets warm and then it gets cool, Its been doing this since long before mankind walked on it. It just dose that. And no amount of government control over any one or thing is going to stop the next phase of mother earth's cycle. you would do just as well trying to outlaw asteroids, or solar flairs. Ice storms. earthquakes. Now there is an idea. Call your government and tell them you oppose any asteroid crashing in to earth. We need another international law!! Just my.02, Moab
OK we all agree we're against pollution and federal/international regulation. We also agree there needs to be a push for research in alternative energies. I feel that as long as industry feels the pinch the hardest it will stimulate research in the form of grants and real R&D of pollution free energy sources. While your right that we would loose a freedom, I feel this would further stimulate solar/wind/bio-diesel use in the average American household. You have to see that we will do what it takes to drive have electricity so imposing a ration would force people to start looking for a new source. I fully understand opposing this treaty, but the hardship it would cause I believe would better the world in the long run. Plus what are they going to do if we back out of it after signing... Bomb us? Doubt it... If the protocol does cripple our economy post ratification I'm sure we'd reject it before it caused any irreparable damage. Maybe I'm naive, but I still think it could do more good than harm.
I agree with you Moab. The sun activity warms and cools the earth with its natural tendancies. This is to be expected. Dr. Robinson's speech is excellent. He lays out the scientific methodology and the evidence specifically on the global warming issue, and he says it straight. "It fails the test". The evidence does not support the hypothesis. Please watch his speech, the video quality could have been better, but his reasoning as a scientist is as exact as a research mind should be.
It is the duty of every scientist to disprove his own theory/hypothesis. This is how research works. No theory is ever a Fact. It is always a theory because it is up to the scientific community to disprove it. Our changing knowledge drives this, and old theories fall, and new ones are developed.
One thing is a fact though, and our Founding Fathers of the USA knew that right. Government is Power; and once you give away your freedoms it is almost impossible to get them back without some type of chaos or fight. You didn't even elect these diplomats that want to control your life. So why would you want them to control you?
Please don't be so willing to surrender your freedoms to these power-hungry maniacs.
It's below zero here in the Midwest USA this morning. I'm going to need to cover every inch of exposed skin to keep from frostbite. My mom, in Michigan, was dumped on by a ton of snow a couple of days ago. Excuse me while I try and stay warm.
Well lets see:-
Does the solar output affect the earths climate? --- yes.
Do greenhouse gases affect the earths climate? --- yes.
Which is having the greatest affect? ------we don't know for sure.
Which one can we do something about? ------ I'll leave that one to you.
Hey I think I must be a global warming alarmist. I'm determined to erode peoples rights to pollute. Or maybe that should'nt be a right. Does that make me a mad facist? My evil plan envolves persuading everyone that the world is heating up from all the pollution we are making, and if we don't stop we're all going to fry to death. This way I can controll peoples minds, and make them do my bidding by just saying two words "GLOBAL WARMING."
OK, I'm putting my plug in it right now before this turns into a sarcastic shouting match. You are free to your opinion, and if you want to try to control others then that is your calling. I respect your rights as well. Just be careful who you surrender your rights to. That/those person(s) may not be so forgiving once the reins of power are in his/her hands.
You may not respect what I have to say, but so far I can express it. Now I am going back to my research. Call me whatever you want; any further discussion one way or the other won't sway anyone's opinion anyway.
Quote from: stevewal2 on February 09, 2007, 10:29:48 AM
Well lets see:-
Does the solar output affect the earths climate? --- yes.
Do greenhouse gases affect the earths climate? --- yes.
Which is having the greatest affect? ------we don't know for sure.
Which one can we do something about? ------ I'll leave that one to you.
You are making two assumptions that are not well thought out.
The first assumption is that the earth has an ecological balance. Things change and are not in balance and have not been since creation.
You are assuming that stopping the production of greenhouse gases will reverse the climate trend. Absolutely false.
The permafrost is melting and will emit more CO2 than mankind could even think of producing.
To reverse global warming will take a number of proactive steps.
1. Sequester carbon and carbondioxide.
A. Injection and burial of carbon and CO2.
B. Encourage the production of limestone by sea organisms
C. Encourage photosynthesis by oceanic plankton
Plankton off of California have decreased 80% since 1940. Sea birds and fish are starving to death. The sea recycles the majority of CO2. Without restoring the plankton, reduction of greenhouse gas emissions is futile. It may slow things very slightly, but will not have much impact.
Ok, I was being sarcastic, no offense.
I've got no intentions to controll anyone. ;D. I just keep hearing this same line of reasoning, that there are people out there trying to use global warming to try to alarm poeple, and in some way take away their civil liberties. It just kind of gets under my skin when I have spent so much time over the years trying to expanding an awarness of the beauty and value of the natural enviroment, and how we are far worse off in every way by destroying it.
I think the lumping together of environmental problems under the heading of global warming is fine with me. Yes we don't know how much of the waming is man made, and we don't know if global warming is the largest global environmental threat. But in my view it's a great place to start making changes. After all cutting down on greenhouse gasses can help to resolve many environmental problems at once (smog, acid rain, ocean acidification, to name a few). So if environmental issues have been packaged to make them consumer friendly, maybe that's the best way of getting them across to the masses.
Cheers,
Steve.
Hi Gearhead,
No I'm not making either of those asumptions, I just did'nt want to start getting into too many details.
The world is in a constant flux. Ecolgical balance does occur to a degree before environmental change happens, and a new balance eventually forms, only to be desturbed again.
Cutting down on greenhouse gasses will not immediately reverse the affects of global warming, it will not even slow it down for 30 or 40 years due to the buffering affect of the oceans.
The melting of permafrost will produce co2, but more impotantly methane (which is a far more powerfull greenhouse gas) thus exacerbating the problem.
The decline in phytoplankton is a problem. 20% world decline since 1990. As far as I am aware this is at least partially caused my stratospheric ozone depletion which increases the amout of shortwave radiation, hamfull to the plankton. So we need to look at whats still causing ozone depletion, ie cfc's (yes they're still being used) and aircraft exhausts. Iron seeding of the oceans is another option, to sucessfully stimulate plankton growth, but must be used with care, as the full impications to widespread seeding are not known.
I agree that we need to encourage oceanic invertabrate growth. Co2 sequestriation is fine for the time being, but is only part of the solution.
We still need to cut pollution.
Study just released:
Global warming a bunch of hooey!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253
Guess we won't be sunbathing in the Arctic anytime soon.
Environmental extremists (Al Gore, for example, who certainly won't sacrifice his excessive lifestyle but wants you to sacrifice yours) would probably say the writers of this report are just a bunch of greedy, evil, ignoramus, non-scientists trying to fool us all.
Too bad these guys, unlike Gore, are REAL scientists.
Quote from: FreedomLover on August 21, 2007, 04:02:03 PM
Study just released:
Global warming a bunch of hooey!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=57253
Guess we won't be sunbathing in the Arctic anytime soon.
Environmental extremists (Al Gore, for example, who certainly won't sacrifice his excessive lifestyle but wants you to sacrifice yours) would probably say the writers of this report are just a bunch of greedy, evil, ignoramus, non-scientists trying to fool us all.
Too bad these guys, unlike Gore, are REAL scientists.
It would take another 10,000 years before we could effect the world in such a manner that it would go into an ice age or warm to the point that we definitely could observe. the planet has natural cycles it warms it cools. I would say sun flares would be the culprit not us.
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070312_solarsys_warming.html
The problem is... What tall tale do you want to believe today?
Scientist are often paid off, or shut up. Spoof science is often
created. There are scientist that are simply wrong or missing
data... OR their data has been tampered with without their
knowledge.
We know there is drastic changes. Thats plain and simple.
The true cause of them is unknown.
Pollution, is nasty. Its bad for us to breath in. Bad for our
environment as it soaks into our soil, water, food chain,
animal and insect life. End of story, it should be abolished.
However, alternative energy will not be allowed, because the
huge losses of money that fund the NWO would be lost.
Therefore, loss of power and absolute control.
They will cook us and live underground before they fail.
?
the problem is not related to pollution, its what the gov want you to believe.
the planet niburu was found in 1983, they told us, then denied right after, why? the planet orbit on our solar system on each 3600 years, unfortunitly in 2012 the planet will pass between earth and mars and will prob finish up this world, the planet is visible from the eye in day light from the south pole, we should be able to see it in middle of may 2009, so little time to do something, and all the gov know about it since 1983!
you will see in the next 1-2 years thing will go worse and its not related to pollution. They dont told the truth because that will stop the peoples to work and stuffs they don t want to lose the control over us.
check this video you will like it
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d_7ctX-E4ew
Either through prion?s, viruses, war, disrespect for the planet,
life destroying meteorites, global temperature changes or greed and hate.
Time IS running out (for us).
we have so many problems.
We really do need to find a zero point energy source.
Not a cure, but it would make a drastic difference
to who we are.
It is interesting to note that,
?the world without us? would make no difference to
The universe AT ALL. It really is up to us to save ourselves.
http://www.powells.com/biblio/62-9780312347291-0
Ya, there?s nooo problem with earth heating
?Experts say they are "stunned" by the loss of ice, with an area almost twice as big as the UK disappearing in the last week alone. ?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/sep/04/climatechange
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread221608/pg1
British High Court rules that there are 11 serious inaccuracies in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58111 :o :o
I especially like #11, which is an outright LIE!!!
How inconvenient are these truths indeed!!
Don't expect him to change his lifestyle, but he sure wants you to change yours!
After watching Al Gores video i found myself questioning what i knew....so off to the net i went and found alote of info that proved this video wrong....scientific info that is.Apart from this Greenland {vinland} was so named because they grew grapes there.............But in saying this i still think that we do not appreciate ,we abuse, our natural environment...acid rain, use of depleted uranium,overfishing the seas,cutting down whole forests especially rainforest,.....mans greed and wastefulness is appalling.We need free energy to reduce our pollution....and to supply other needs in different ways.
Hi,
I'm just wondering if we can all agree on 2 things:
1. Unnecessary environmental damage is a bad thing ( whether it be pollution, over fishing or man made desertification etc)
2. We really don't want a global police state and never ending exploitation and wars (whether it be in the name of terrorism, global warming or anything else).
Or am I asking too much here :)
Momentum is building. Somebody needs to speak up for sure before the power hungry nuts in the UN control our lives completely; and Al Gore needs his big lying mouth SHUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=58024
Global warming...."a world problem requires world government".Thats the agenda and its all about nations surrending their soveriegnty.This will be driven home for all its worth and possibly a world tax on fossil fuels at production will be introduced......no matter what the consumer is going to pay.We need a cheap plentiful non polluting source of energy now........( a tax of $1 a barrel would reap @$25 billion a year ?)
world oil production is 86 000 000 barrels a day....
this is good
its turning us into a bunch of desperados
fueling us to be more determined
somethings got to give soon
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83323
OOPPPSS!! Global Warming is finally being admitted as BS.
You think Al Gore will shut his lying mouth now? Don't bet on it! He and his buddies Bush and Obama and Biden need the Carbon Unit system so they can steal money from us and control us all.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on February 07, 2007, 07:48:43 AM
Not everyone agrees:
http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/global-warming020507.htm
Over 17000 scientists have signed the petition so far:
Do you know how many scientists there are in the world? Millions. Literally MILLIONS. Let them sign all the petitions they want, because your logic is ridiculous: Some tiny, tiny percent said it ain't real, so it must not be!
Further, the issue of the green house effect is over a hundred years old. It's not some new, cooked up idea to take your freedom. Those concerned about it were the fringe, the weirdos until just two years ago, but somehow it's this great conspiracy? Talk about nutty!
Tell me, where is YOUR science? You cannot point to even one peer-reviewed article from a reputable publication. I know because I have presented this challenge to EVERY denialist. I've run across.
QuoteIt takes much more evidence to conclude the so called "fact" of global warming.
Really? Like what? Relativity: evidence? Almost zilch. Was just proven mathematically, but was completely accepted for nearly a hundred years.
Why do you hold AGW to a higher standard?
Do you even understand what science is? It is not the **proving** of anything most of the time. It is literally almost all theory **accepted** as fact.
QuoteJust don't give away your freedoms so easily. Everybody who says they are your friend is not necessarily so.
What freedoms, pray tell, has any climate research and/or renewable technology taken from you? Answer: none. The ironic thing here is, the open giving their brain away to the highest bidder is you. It was bought by Exxon and BuCheney. Both are factually known to have sown extensive propaganda.
And they got **you.** You are the captive of lies.... even after the liars who fooled you have admitted the truth.
QuoteOver the last week in the Midwest USA it has been in the teens and below zero (Degrees F.)
That statement is proof you don't know the difference between weather and climate.
QuoteThe easiest way to get people to give away their freedoms is with alarmist propaganda. Do you want the United Nations to control YOU! I know I sure don't.
I repeat: what freedoms have been taken? The only freedoms taken from you have been by multi-national corps and the Republican WH and Congress... denialists, all of them. Ain't that a fly in your ointment?
QuoteWe need much, much more long-term data than is available right now.
Few things in science have been proven as extensively as AGW. And if you think years and years of more study is a good idea, then you obviously don't realize the Earth temperature can change by up to 7 degrees in as little as 2 years. Ice core data proves this. Good luck with waiting when methane is pouring out of the Arctic.]
Do some reading.
For any doubt you have: 1. http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/how-to-talk-to-global-warming-sceptic.html
2. http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2004/12/index/#Responses
3. http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
On how the arguments are nowhere near equal: http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2007/04/false-equivalencies.html
It ain't the sun: http://www.livescience.com/environment/050811_global_warming.html
Now, look at all that evidence - not to mention your own eyes as the Arctic melts away, animals have to move their habitats, trees march into the Arctic, ice shelves break off, methane starts boiling out of the oceans and tundra... etc.
Oh, and by the way, global warming does not preclude weather patterns from existing. La Nina brings cooler temps for example, but the overall trend continues upwards. And, you could get a sudden cooling due to the thermohaline shutting down... and it would be because of warming decreasing the heat differential between the water from the Gulf Stream and that water in the North Atlantic... and it would be due to AGW.
Wake up. Time is short.
I repeat: where is your science against? Hint: there isn't any. Anywhere.
Cheers
Quote from: mapsrg on March 04, 2008, 05:38:14 PM
world oil production is 86 000 000 barrels a day....
Actually, it's about 73 mb/d. The rest comes from other forms of "liquid" fuels, including nat. gas, processing gains, tar sands, etc. Crude oil production has been flat for four years. IEA just reported in November we are in deep doo-doo. They are very late to the game: many of us have known this for a long time. Visit The Oil Drum if you want in-depth energy info. Best site for it on the web. (No, I'm not on staff there.)
The economic downturn is reducing some demand, but we have so far to go...
Cheers
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 11, 2008, 07:53:02 AM
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83323
OOPPPSS!! Global Warming is finally being admitted as BS.
You think Al Gore will shut his lying mouth now? Don't bet on it! He and his buddies Bush and Obama and Biden need the Carbon Unit system so they can steal money from us and control us all.
"Admitted?" I think you mean "claimed." Perhaps English is not your first language?
QuoteThe report also includes new peer-reviewed scientific studies and analyses refuting man-made warming fears and a climate developments that contradict the theory.
I wait with 'bated breath.
And, friend, quoting World Net Daily? C'mon....
Quote from: ResinRat2 on October 12, 2007, 12:26:06 PM
British High Court rules that there are 11 serious inaccuracies in Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth"
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=58111 :o :o
I especially like #11, which is an outright LIE!!!
How inconvenient are these truths indeed!!
Don't expect him to change his lifestyle, but he sure wants you to change yours!
Quote1. The film claims that melting snows on Mount Kilimanjaro evidence global warming. The Government's expert was forced to concede that this is not correct.
FACT: it can't be proven to be. Either the court or the writer is are idiots.
Quote2. The film suggests that evidence from ice cores proves that rising CO2 causes temperature increases over 650,000 years. The court found that the film was misleading: Over that period the rises in CO2 lagged behind the temperature rises by 800-2000 years.
The judge is an idiot. You go to a glorified lawyer for your climate science? Neither he, the article writer, nor you seem to understand what a positive feedback is. FACT: Milankovich cycles seem to be the primary push out of ice ages, but that leads to the release of CO2, which then leads to more warming. Get it? Gore was right.
Quote3. The film uses emotive images of Hurricane Katrina and suggests that this has been caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that it was "not possible" to attribute one-off events to global warming.
Again, stupid. What can be stated in a court of law vs. what is scientifically accepted as true even though as yet not totally proven are very, very different. The court had no place commenting here. The movie was not made for a court. FACT: the increased intensities of storms IS considered to be due to AGW: warmer water, more energy. Hard to argue with that since it is a FACT that the heat in water is what drives storms to form and strengthen.
Quote4. The film shows the drying up of Lake Chad and claims that this was caused by global warming. The Government's expert had to accept that this was not the case.
Again, the court is applying the burden of fact where it doesn't belong. FACT: Lake Chad *is* drying up partly due to AGW. Provable as per a court case? No. Scientifically certain? Yes.
This is what happens when you use a hammer to swat a fly.
Quote5. The film claims that a study showed that polar bears had drowned due to disappearing arctic ice. It turned out that Mr. Gore had misread the study: In fact four polar bears drowned, and this was because of a particularly violent storm.
Your post is really old, so I'll forgive this one. They are having to swim far offshore and ARE drowning.
Quote6. The film threatens that global warming could stop the Gulf Stream, throwing Europe into an ice age: The Claimant's evidence was that this was a scientific impossibility.
The claimant and the court are both idiots. This has, in fact, happened before. The little ice age and the Younger Dryas were both die to affects on the thermohaline. Massive runoff from melting ice in North America shifted the thermohaline causing the Younger Dryas.
Quote7. The film blames global warming for species losses including coral reef bleaching. The Government could not find any evidence to support this claim.
Then the government is stupid. See several above about the mis-application of law to science. Both are facts.
Quote8. The film suggests that the Greenland ice covering could melt, causing sea levels to rise dangerously. The evidence is that Greenland will not melt for millennia.
No, it isn't. There is undeniable evidence of ice sheets melting in decades, let alone millenia. Do some checking on the Western European ice sheet and how fast it melted away.
Quote9. The film suggests that the Antarctic ice covering is melting; the evidence was that it is in fact increasing.
False. It has been increasing in the center, decreasing at the edges, with a net loss. Perhaps the judge should have waited a few years, because he looks like a complete fool now.
Quote10. The film suggests that sea levels could rise by seven meters, causing the displacement of millions of people. In fact, the evidence is that sea levels are expected to rise by about 40 centimeters over the next hundred years and that there is no such threat of massive migration.
False. Sea level CAN change meters in mere decades. Again, that judge should have held his tongue. Also, Gore never said it would happen in 100 years.
Quote11. The film claims that rising sea levels has caused the evacuation of certain Pacific islands to New Zealand. The Government are unable to substantiate this and the Court observed that this appears to be a false claim.
False.
QuoteAs a result, inhabitants of low-lying Pacific island nations are among the most vulnerable to the effects of global warming.
A report released in July by Make Poverty History -- a coalition of more than 60 aid, community and faith-based organisations, including Friends of the Earth -- noted that two villages on Kiribati have already been abandoned due to climate change.
Additionally, some 2,000 people on Papua New Guinea’s isolated Carteret Islands -- which are disappearing beneath the waves -- are preparing to be evacuated to Bougainville, 86km to the southwest. They are regarded as some of the world’s first ‘climate change refugees’.
http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=43743
Cheers
Ain't that just like the politicians though? Everyone has an agenda, spinning their wheels in the mud.....while the more immediate threats are treated like the emperor's clothes, the proverbial elephant in the living room. Imagine for a moment if the earth magically stopped turning with the U.S. on the night side....for say....just a few days. It doesn't take an Al Gore to invent an answer.....Our own sun has a much greater, by several giant orders of magnitude, impact on our climate in hours than man's pollutive efforts have caused over hundreds of years. So, while global warming is constantly being debated, and used for various agenda.....the 'real' powers that be have been spraying the skies all over the world, partially in an effort to reduce solar radiation from reaching the planet's surface.
Those in the know, have recorded such increases and are acting according to their heart's desire.
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2005/05/10/global-warming-something-new-under-the-sun/
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2003/03/030321075236.htm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/sun_output_030320.html
Not only did the Bible correctly predict such would take place (Rev 16:8), but also the earthly conditions at this time, and who would be ruling the earth! We are told that in the final part of the days, man would take dominion over the air and go even into space. That a great 'beast' (meaning a powerful military/political machine) would even take power over the world, and to some degree, even the weather. The 'beast' according to the Holy Scriptures would even seek to change times and seasons:
http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB112258962467199210-H9je4Nilal4o52nbYCIbq6Em4.html
Ruling with this beast would be a nefarious group who call themselves Jews and are not, but are of the synagogue of satan. Their mark, or symbol would be that of solomon. His seal is the six pointed star, his number, 666. Secret socieities revere solomon and use the six pointed star in their occultic practices as does their mother, the , babylon. Their bible, the babylonian talmud is an eye opening read, let me tell you. Yahweh promises to bring to ruin, those ruining the earth.
Rev 16:8 talks about God causing the sun to increase it's output toward the earth, and instead of repenting for their wickedness, the beast and it's followers curse His name all the more.....
There are many, many more spot on warnings contained in God's instruction manual for His children.
And the true threat to this planet is man's continued arrogance and harm toward his fellow man....and allowing himself to be mislead regarding his Creator.
For it simply will not be allowed to stand.
"I will bring to ruin, those ruining the earth" - Yahweh, The Ultimate Authority.
Blessings in Yeshua, Jesus Christ,
TS
Quote from: TechStuf on December 11, 2008, 02:26:06 PMSo, while global warming is constantly being debated
No, it's not. Your Bible + Exxon = very, very misinformed.
Not only do you use info that does not support your agenda, it is five years old. Also, you use it dishonestly. This is from the end of the article you linked:
QuoteThis major finding may help climatologists to distinguish between solar and man-made influences on climate.
Translation: this article does not claim the sun is the cause of all global warming. It states that new data gives a clearer picture as to how much IS solar (why do you denialists act as if climate scientists claim there is no solar influence? Why lie?), which allows climate scientists to more accurately measure the AGW component. So ,why pretend the article claims it's all solar? And why use a six year old article?
Here's the most up-to-date science, for your cognitively dissonant pleasure:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081217075138.htm
QuoteSupports other recent work
Joanna Haigh from Imperial College London has also studied possible links between solar variability and modern-day climate change.
“This is a careful piece of work by Jon Egill Kristjansson that appears to find no evidence for the reputed link between cosmic rays and clouds," she commented to BBC.
“It's supporting other recent work that also found no relationship," Haigh added.
Cheers
Quote from: argona369 on February 02, 2007, 12:57:38 AM
We?re cooked. Figuratively and literally,,,
?The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100?
...
Misinformation.
All the story here about the global warming swindle:
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 27, 2008, 06:23:16 AM
Misinformation.
All the story here about the global warming swindle:
http://video.google.fr/videoplay?docid=-4123082535546754758
My god. Why would you respond to my saying denialists rely on lies to make their case then post the most notorious set of lies ever made on the subject? Every major point in Global Warming Swindle has been shown to be lies and distortions. Literally.
Are you really not aware that at least two of the scientists in that "movie" almost sued the makers for editing the film in such a way to completely misrepresent what they said?
Why can you not think and investigate for yourself? Educate yourself:
http://fermiparadox.wordpress.com/2007/03/10/swindlers/
http://www.swindonclimate.org.uk/200703GGWS
http://www.realclimate.org/wiki/index.php?title=The_great_global_warming_swindle
http://www.csiro.au/resources/pfxg.html
It is one thing to question authority, but to offer real critique and true skepticism one must deal with the truth. Bringing lies (in all the various forms) into a discussion tells us but one thing: You have nothing to say worth listening to. One must, almost by definition, be a skeptic when associated with zero point energy research. It defies convention. But when your skepticism becomes an agenda, it is no longer a reliable guide to others. That is, while there is a great deal to mistrust from TPTB, and even other people, not everything is a conspiracy to defraud you of your life and liberty.
Consider: the people who started the research were doing their work a hundred years ago. This issue is not new, and it wasn't created by Al Gore.
If you do nothing else, read this (ALL of it): http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html
Wake up. Time is short.
Cheers
Hello,
facts about the global-warming-swindle :
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4 (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
QuoteIn a 2003 poll conducted by German environmental researchers Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch, two-thirds of more than 530 climate scientists from 27 countries surveyed did not believe that "the current state of scientific knowledge is developed well enough to allow for a reasonable assessment of the effects of greenhouse gases." About half of those polled stated that the science of climate change was not sufficiently settled to pass the issue over to policymakers at all.
http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2008/260808Climate.htm (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2008/260808Climate.htm)
Look at the grafics, Al Gore prooves global cooling, the vertical scale is inverse, not all people are fooled
by this :
http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=791 (http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=791)
This Link here :
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
was found here:
http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808211777/energy-and-environment/global-cooling-global-warming-has-ended-scientists-agree.html (http://www.rightsidenews.com/200808211777/energy-and-environment/global-cooling-global-warming-has-ended-scientists-agree.html)
If you want to read something about the energy-balance-sheet of the earth :
http://www.physiker.com/klima.htm (http://www.physiker.com/klima.htm)
got to
"Es ist die Sonne und nicht der Mensch" ( It´s the sun and not man ) then move to :
"2) Groessenordnungen" ( range of energy-relations )
and look for the diagramm "Leistungsaufnahme der Erde" ( power received by earth )
Input frome the sun : 179 000 TW ( Terawatt )
Variation-Limit : +-1 000 TW
Reflected back to space : 54 000 TW
Nuclear-generated thermic-Energy within earth : 100 TW
Fossile-Energy procued by mankind 10 TW !!!!!!!!!!! (//http://) which equals 0.05 ‰ ( 1/1000 ) of total Solar input ?
Question : how can these 0.05 ‰ outperform the 99.9 % energy-input from the sun and therefore cause
gloabl warming ?
You can only educate yourself, if you use common sense based on real scientific data.... and
above all : do not believe politicians.
There is almost no sientific consensous and therefore we have to rely on facts ( presented above at this german physisc-website ).
I hope we can finish this useless discussion. I do.
Regards
Kator01
Quote from: Kator01 on December 27, 2008, 11:50:45 AM
Hello,
facts about the global-warming-swindle :
http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4 (http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=597d0677-2a05-47b4-b34f-b84068db11f4&p=4)
You're joking right? 2003? You are quoting a work from 2003? And all it says is that the topic shouldn't YET be turned over to policy makers? This is the sad propaganda of the desperate. Show me ONE paper or study that shows the scientists are politicized. You should be ashamed. The only politicization is on your side. What's more, it's PROVEN, not propaganda. We know Exxon funded the nutjobs and it's proven the Bush White House silenced scientists and altered data.
Can you say the same about the REAL climate science? No, you can't.
Patterson: show me SCIENCE, not a tirade in a newspaper. His point that solar cycles have some effect is, of course, correct, but when he dismisses CO2 as a forcing, he's making himself look like an idiot. We can conclude his "science" isn't science because he makes statements that cannot be supported from the science. He has an agenda.
Here's propaganda for you, your lying swindle revealed:
http://members.greenpeace.org/blog/exxonsecrets/2008/07/21/swindled_by_the_swindle
QuoteOfcom ruled today on a complaint against the polemic documentary about global warming, The Great Global Warming Swindle.
It upheld complaints by the former UK Chief Scientist, Sir David King, the IPCC and oceanographer Carl Wunsch, stating that the filmmakers had treated them unfairly, misquoted them or misled them into being interviewed.
Try this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lIjGynF4qkE Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=goDsc9IaSQ8 Part 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5gUd6y3zKU Part 4: look at about the 4:50 mark.
Etc.
QuoteLook at the grafics, Al Gore prooves global cooling, the vertical scale is inverse, not all people are fooled
by this :
http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=791 (http://www.oekologismus.de/?p=791)
I don't read German, but thanks.
QuoteThis Link here :
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport (http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport)
Wow... this is just sad. Inhofe? Are you kidding me?
QuoteQuestion : how can these 0.05 ‰ outperform the 99.9 % energy-input from the sun and therefore cause
gloabl warming ?
How can you even ask such a question? When a system is in balance, what does it take to put it out of balance? This is a foolish and silly argument you're repeating.
QuoteYou can only educate yourself, if you use common sense based on real scientific data.... and above all : do not believe politicians.
Please. Your whole argument is based on what GORE said. Have I mentioned Gore? Who gives a damn about Gore? Nobody. Read the science.
QuoteThere is almost no sientific consensous and therefore we have to rely on facts
That is quite simply a lie:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Statements_by_dissenting_organizations
QuoteWith the July 2007 release of the revised statement by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate.[57]
All you have shown by repeating the lie that consensus dies not exist is that you don't understand what the term "consensus" means in the scientific arena. Hint: it does not mean 100% agreement. (There are always liars, poor scientists, and even a few who really disagree.)
http://vagabondscholar.blogspot.com/2007/04/false-equivalencies.html
http://www.livescience.com/environment/070716_gw_notwrong.html
http://www.thedailygreen.com/environmental-news/latest/bush-global-warming-47121017
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/5782#comment-form
QuoteI hope we can finish this useless discussion. I do.
Don't respond. That will finish it. As your case has no merit in the scientific literature, that would be a good idea.
http://scholarsandrogues.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/anti-global-heating-claims-a-reasonably-thorough-debunking/
As natural observations make this an open-and-shut case, all the more so.
Cheers
Hello People
First the real then the real crazy:
Less SunSpots = Less Earth Heat
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
Tropical Tree Cuts = Carbon Nut$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
=
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Cant BUY our way out of a NATURAL cycle, although it does sound nice
for the traders, not the suckers. Just like any media/market driven con-sept.
NO bailout for Mother Nature!
CO2 a fuel?????? (water shift react CO2 into methane - propane with plasma)
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200417/000020041704A0600519.php
Science Links Japan | A Study on the Ionization of CO2 and Discharge Conditions in a Magnetically Supported Glow-discharge
OR
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html AlgaeOil-BioMass
OR.... wind&$olar lol........
Add device to engine that uses waist calories to gasify kerosene(clean)
into light gasses and burn them... (again water shift reaction)
Dave
Quote from: drspark on December 28, 2008, 02:06:48 AM
Hello People
First the real then the real crazy:
Less SunSpots = Less Earth Heat
http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/30sep_blankyear.htm
=
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maunder_minimum
Tropical Tree Cuts = Carbon Nut$
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation
=
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/
Cant BUY our way out of a NATURAL cycle, although it does sound nice
for the traders, not the suckers. Just like any media/market driven con-sept.
NO bailout for Mother Nature!
CO2 a fuel?????? (water shift react CO2 into methane - propane with plasma)
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200417/000020041704A0600519.php
Science Links Japan | A Study on the Ionization of CO2 and Discharge Conditions in a Magnetically Supported Glow-discharge
OR
http://cc.pubco.net/www.valcent.net/i/misc/Vertigro/index.html AlgaeOil-BioMass
OR.... wind&$olar lol........
Add device to engine that uses waist calories to gasify kerosene(clean)
into light gasses and burn them... (again water shift reaction)
Dave
The world apparently has gone insane. No matter how much fact, how much science, how much observable reality I show you, all you can come back with is illogical, ridiculous jabber.
We are in deep trouble when people have lost the ability to think coherently.
And no wonder. Look at the education level: "waist" calories?
Criminy...
Quote from: magkor on December 27, 2008, 08:28:25 AM
...
Every major point in Global Warming Swindle has been shown to be lies and distortions. Literally.
...
It's false.
Study the scientific papers from physicists (not these from climatologists who don't know much about thermodynamics).
CO2 increases AFTER warming :
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1276
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
"The inescapable conclusion is that human contribution is not significant and that
observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a
negligible contribution to climate warming":
http://www.physorg.com/news116996704.html
About lies, see this concerning the alleged slow-down of Gulf Stream:
"the ocean current data, that uncertainty was huge - casting severe doubt on the reality of any change. Worse still, the NOC team had made a basic mistake in their sums, making their data seem more precise than they were."
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1510
Today, there is a global cooling :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-516969/Global-Cooling-Amazing...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/04/rss-satellite-data-for-jan08-2n...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-516969/Global-Cooling-Amazing...
There is also a "global warming" on Mars, will you accuse CO2 and the human kind ? :-)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html
The global warming by CO2 is now a question of faith, a new religion with the gurus of the IPCC and ecologist believers supporting them by ideology, not a scientific fact.
The main cause of climate variations is probably... the sun!
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Global-Warming-Partly-Sun-039-s-Fault-90458.shtml
maybe we could pay billions in tax , and it will go away :) .....WeEeEeEeeeeeeeee!!!!
...k whats the next major crises,well just tax that too :).
Quote from: exnihiloest on December 28, 2008, 05:48:06 AM
It's false.
Study the scientific papers from physicists (not these from climatologists who don't know much about thermodynamics).
Ridiculous! People who study climate systems - and don't many of them also study physics?Uh, YES! They do! - should not be listened to, but people who don't study climate should be listened to?
You start with a premise that is utterly ridiculous.
QuoteCO2 increases AFTER warming :
REALLY? C'mon... say something worthy of the discussion. This is another piece of BS from someone who knows nothing of science. Everybody and anybody who knows even the slightest about climate science knows this. It's a non-issue - except for those with an agenda attempting to twist the discussion. Why pretend climate scientists don't understand Milankovic cycles?
What you are proving by posting such a ridiculously obvious point as if it wasn't already known to climate scientists is that you don't understand feedback systems.
Quotehttp://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1276
http://fr.arxiv.org/abs/0707.1161
Willie Soon!!!! Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!
And I said science. That is not science. It's a non-peer-reviewed article. I.e. it's toilet paper.
QuoteChief scientific researcher at the frontiers of Freedom's Center for Science and Public Policy which was set up after $100,000 ExxonMobil grant in 2002.
QuotePublished, with fellow sceptic Sallie Baliunas, an article in the Climate Research journal which reviewed the work of a number of climate scientists who concluded that the last century is the hottest in the last 1000 years. The article, partly funded by the American Petroleum Institute, caused the resignation of three of the journal's editors, in protest at the peer review process.
Remember: politics + climate = Exxon = bull crap = Soon
The sick-and-twisted thing about Soon? He never does climate research. Never has. He does "literature reviews" in which he twists the results to be what Exxon/Heartland/Etc. want them to be. That 's why those scientists - real scientists - quit.
I said: SCIENCE, not BS. You are wasting my time.
Quotehttp://www.physorg.com/news116996704.html
404 error. Why am I not surprised?
QuoteAbout lies, see this concerning the alleged slow-down of Gulf Stream:
"the ocean current data, that uncertainty was huge - casting severe doubt on the reality of any change. Worse still, the NOC team had made a basic mistake in their sums, making their data seem more precise than they were."
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/index.php?menuID=2&subID=1510
Again, give me science, not a poorly written article by an idiot who does not know the difference between propaganda and science. (He thinks "Global Warming Swindle" is science!) Further, all you have done here is show that scientists disagree. OH- MY - GOD! Please. Nothing in that article supports that Climate Change is not happening and is not partly driven by human action.
Or do you not understand logic?
QuoteToday, there is a global cooling
No, there isn't. From YOUR link:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7574603.stm
QuoteEven so, 2008 is set to be about the 10th warmest year since 1850, and Met Office scientists say temperatures will rise again as La Nina conditions ease.
You don't know the difference between weather and climate? And you mis-use data? You should be ashamed.
QuoteThere is also a "global warming" on Mars, will you accuse CO2 and the human kind ? :-)
Don't throw childish logic at me. I will not be polite about throwing it back in your face. Even if accurate, do you think mars = earth?
QuoteThe global warming by CO2 is now a question of faith, a new religion with the gurus of the IPCC and ecologist believers supporting them by ideology, not a scientific fact.
Really? Because you say so? Proof? Has the massive global warming science - that started 100 years ago - been funded by Exxon and shut down by BuCheney? No. The denialist industry was funded by Exxon and supported by BuCheney. How can you blatantly lie and claim science is religion but that well known bought-and-paid for liars are real scientists?
You believe something because Exxon told you to. And YOU talk about faith-based thinking?
QuoteThe main cause of climate variations is probably... the sun!
See previous links in previous posts.
HEY MAGKOR| >:( YOU NEVER EXPLAINED WHY MARS IS MELTING ALSO?????? HOW ARE THE SUV'S CAUSING THAT?????? GLOBAL WARMING IS A FRAUD AND THE SUN IS GETTING HOTTER!!!!!!!!! NOT ONLY THAT BUT HOW IS IT THAT WE HAVE SET RECORDS FOR BEING COLD IN THE LAST TEN YEARS IF ITS SUPPOSED TO GETTING HOTTER!!!!!!!!!!! AND PLEASE TELL ME WHY SCIENTIST HAVE DONE ICE CORE DRILLINGS AND HAVE FOUND THAT PLACES LIKE GREEN LAND HAD HOTTER TEMPS BACK HUNDREDS OF YEARS AGO??????? LOOK SHIT HEAD YOU NEAD TO UNDERSTAND THAT WE WILL GO THRU CYCLES!!! ALSO CO2 THAT IS OMITED IS WHAT PLANTS AND TREES BREATH!!!!! PEOPLE WITH GREEN HOUSES PUMP CO2 INTO THE AIR TO GROW PLANTS AT A HIGHER RATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AND DONT GIVE ME THAT OHHHH THERE IS LESS TREES NOW THING BECAUSE THATS ALSO A LIEEEEEEE!!!!! WE NOW HAVE MORE TREES ON EARTH THEN IN THE 1800S
GET LOST YOU NEWBIE AND WATCH THE VIDEO >>>>>> http://infospill.com/?q=node/473 <<<<<<<<<<< listen at 3:10 into the video he tells you how global warming debate is started by the new world order UN!!!
Quote from: Haliburton on December 28, 2008, 02:50:11 PM
AND DONT GIVE ME THAT OHHHH THERE IS LESS TREES NOW THING BECAUSE THATS ALSO A LIEEEEEEE!!!!! WE NOW HAVE MORE TREES ON EARTH THEN IN THE 1800S
Does anyone here know how to tell the truth without twisting it ?
In the 1800s we still had lots of old growth trees ........that means BIG trees .......fully grown trees .
I agree that there are more trees now than in the 1800s because I have seen enough land that has been logged . The trees there are very close together and most of them are only a few inches or less in diameter. We have almost no fully grown trees left ..........but we have LOTS of very large weeds. Some of these weeds might become real full grown trees if we leave them alone a hundred years or so .
gary
Quote from: magkor on December 28, 2008, 03:14:18 AM
The world apparently has gone insane. No matter how much fact, how much science, how much observable reality I show you, all you can come back with is illogical, ridiculous jabber.
We are in deep trouble when people have lost the ability to think coherently.
And no wonder. Look at the education level: "waist" calories?
Criminy...
Dear Criminy aka Magkor, :D
You have no clue about what calories are? or are you waisted?
Do us all a flavor and stop wasist-ingly our Oxygen with your lungks, OK
Sincerely
DrSpark
QuoteDoes anyone here know how to tell the truth without twisting it ?
In the 1800s we still had lots of old growth trees ........that means BIG trees .......fully grown trees .
What did i twist? all i said was that their is more trees!
have you ever heard of tree farm? they are wonderful and many of them exist where trees where never before like grass lands! tree farms contain all types of wild life also. big trees or little trees, the only difference is the tight wood rings
Halliburton: when you say something that is logical, I'll respond to it. Your screed was full of logical fallacies. To wit:
Oooh! There was a new cold record somewhere!
1. That's weather, not climate.
2. Climate CHANGE. Get it? CHANGE. It is anticipated to be highly chaotic. Yes, that's right, the science SAYS it will be chaotic. Being on this site, I would expect you to know something of chaotic systems. Apparently, you do not.
3. New cold records? FYI: New HEAT records outnumber new cold records 2:1. Should it not be balanced? No?
Now, if you've got nothing to say that is intelligent and logical, why post?
Waist? Chrissakes... it's WASTE.
Oh, and about the trees: there is a huge difference in the carbon sink created by an old growth ECOSYSTEM vs. a tree farm. The carbon released by not only cutting down the trees, but also killing the soil, etc., is huge.
Cheers
Yea!!!
Were gonna freeze or fry???
It will be a waistland.
Only monies and panic fear will fix.
retarded?
yelling fire on a crowded gullible planet
NOT
DrSpark
You Support those that have figured out how to tax the air you breath
Quote from: argona369 on February 02, 2007, 12:57:38 AM
?The panel predicted temperature rises of 2-11.5 degrees Fahrenheit by the year 2100?
By 2100 I won't be around, neither will my kids, and probably not my grandkids!
So it won't affect me ;D
But anytime government gets involved, they just screw it up worse anyway.
First we had to cut down on auto emissions, so we had catalytic converters mandated.
Now we have too much C02.
Then Some genius decided that we should burn food for fuel,Corn prices doubled
so farmers started planting more corn at the expense of other crops.. Food prices sky rocketed.
Not wanting to be left behind, other countries jumped on the ethanol bandwagon. Lots
of money to be made, they ran out of land, so now they are cutting down the rain forests to plant
corn or sugar cane. So now ethanol production ( or lack rain forests) produces MORE C02 than
All the cars in the world.
Oil Prices have dropped and food prices continue to soar.
I'd much rather eat than drive my car.
Global warming ? Maybe or maybe not. But one thing for sure, governments don't think before they
act, and most of the time they act they screw it up.
I agree we need new inexpensive ( free would be nice) energy sources. but don't take food out of my
mouth to run the cars or burns the lights.
And maybe I am a little greedy, but frankly I don't care how hot it gets in a 100 years if I'm going to
have to starve now.
Quote from: Digjam on December 29, 2008, 03:58:06 AM
By 2100 I won't be around, neither will my kids, and probably not my grandkids!
So it won't affect me ;D
I really hope that was just a joke.
QuoteBut anytime government gets involved...
I don't remember mentioning governments. Look at the relocalization and transition town movements as good examples of how this transfer must happen to be at all successful: grassroots. It's time for the people to re-assert their primacy.
QuoteGlobal warming ? Maybe or maybe not.
Wrong. Anthropogenically-forced Climate Change, period.
Remember: you ARE the government, so who is really responsible? Have you marched? Written letters? Anything?
QuoteI agree we need new inexpensive ( free would be nice) energy sources. but don't take food out of my
mouth to run the cars or burns the lights.
And maybe I am a little greedy, but frankly I don't care how hot it gets in a 100 years if I'm going to
have to starve now.
I strongly encourage looking into passivhaus (retrofits if you already own), earthships, strawbale, cob, etc., styles of building. Renewable, sustainable. And, of course, some DIY energy generation.
Cheers
sorry to not read this whole thred... i did not...
i do have my own theries why the planet is getting warmer ....
i think we are DRIFTING ... and yes i have a verry reasonible explanation for why this may be occouring ...
heres a clue!!!!!
tesla said " i wish i never invented ac power"......
why would he say that ... well sure he had better ways... but not why he said that...
WE HAVE CHANGED OUR NATURAL FREQ OF THE EARTH.... WITH THE GRID... AND I BELEAVE THERE IS AN INBALANCE IN NATURES SYSTEM CAUSED BY US ....
WE ARE DRIFTING ...
why?
my best guess is we are moveing closer to the sun than what we should be ... and perhaps if plannet x is passing by us ...in 2012 than perhaps there is a colision instore... UNLESS we can move the plannet back to where it is suspoto be.....
it makes sence to me any way ... 50/60 hz.. seams too positive... and pos atracts pos
so you do the math ....
i know the grid was NEVER NEEDED
BETTER FIX IT ......
IST!
SO DID TESLA IN 1888 LOL OR THERE BOUTS...
QuoteHalliburton: when you say something that is logical, I'll respond to it.
haha is that why you responded!
typical lefty Al Gore wanna be! hahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!
And young trees produce more oxygen then old trees!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! old trees produce carbon dioxide when they begin to die and decay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! so who gives a rats ass if we cut the old ones down!!!!!!!! the carbon will be released sooner or latter!!!!!!!! and when it does release the carbon thru fire or decay or milling it to build a new home, the released carbon is what the younger trees feed off of!!!!!!!!!!!!
and you never told us why mars is melting!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!???????????????? get lost newbie >:( ahhhhh the sky is fallingggggggggg!!!!!!!!!! Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh
For those interested in this topic - and not uneducated with a mental age of ten - here is a nice overview of where things stand and the absurdity of the denialists' stance.
http://oilsandstruth.org/cold-truth-about-climate-change
Cheers
Hello,
education needs good scientific basis-knowledge and not layman-viewpoint :
http://www.friendsofscience.org/ (http://www.friendsofscience.org/)
QuoteAbout us ::
Friends of Science is a non-profit organization run by dedicated volunteers comprised mainly of active and retired earth and atmospheric scientists, engineers, and other professionals. We have assembled a Scientific Advisory Board of esteemed climate scientists from around the world to offer a critical mass of current science on global climate and climate change to policy makers, as well as any other interested parties. We also do extensive literature research on these scientific subjects. Concerned about the abuse of science displayed in the politically inspired Kyoto protocol, we offer critical evidence that challenges the premises of Kyoto and present alternative causes of climate change.
Our major environmental concern is the significant shift in recent years away from the important emphasis of previous decades on continual reductions in air and water pollution, to focus almost exclusively on global warming. The current obsession with global warming is misguided in that climate fluctuations are a natural phenomena and we suggest that adaptation should be emphasized rather than misguided attempts at control.
We do not represent any industry group, and operate on an extremely limited budget. Our operational funds are derived from membership dues and donations, contributing to the educational work we are doing in the field of science. We work to educate the public through the dissemination of relevant, balanced and objective information on Climate Change, and to support real environmental solutions.
Friends of Science values your input, either on the science or policy of global warming. And, if you’re as concerned as we are about global policy based on weak science, please join us to spark a national and international debate on global warming.
Kator01
Quote from: Haliburton on December 29, 2008, 12:44:21 AM
What did i twist? all i said was that their is more trees!
have you ever heard of tree farm? they are wonderful and many of them exist where trees where never before like grass lands! tree farms contain all types of wild life also. big trees or little trees, the only difference is the tight wood rings
Haliburton
What you said is probably true but very misleading
Yes there are LOTS of trees growing now .
But for the most part those trees are very young and small .......
When you simply say that there are more trees than in the 1800 it sounds like you are saying that the volume of growing wood is more than greater than in the 1800s .....this is no where near the truth .
gary
Well magkor you have done a fine job. You have insulted every member that has disagreed with the concept of global-warming; even going so far as to insult my GRAMMER. This attack deserves a response and all my motivation comes down to this: I recognize that the leaders of the Environmental movement need a crisis to implement their grand ideas of global control. This includes the United Nations, Al Gore and his ilk; and this is why they are promoting global-warming as a crisis. They need to implement the Kyoto Agreement as swiftly as possible before the truth of their deception is known.
Below is the just released report by the U.S. Senate Republican Minority Committee with the consensus of over 650 international experts who soundly debunk the claim that there exists a "consensus" in science that human activity is causing a global warming. The report includes links to PEER-REVIEWED Studies that debunk global warming. In fact, the total number of scientists represented in the report is 12 times the number of U.N. scientists who authored the official IPCC 2007 report. This, by the way, is just released and contains the latest opinions available.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=83947f5d-d84a-4a84-ad5d-6e2d71db52d9
I guess to you they all have the minds of 10 year olds, not worthy of mention. Also below is a link to a peer-reviewed research paper that started it all.
http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm
Not good enough for you though because these disagree with your human caused Global-Warming Myth.
Also included in this dissent is the petition you brush off because ONLY 31,000 scientists have signed it, including over 9000 PhD’s :
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
Obviously to you they all have the mental capacity of ten year old children. Where you get off on this is unbelievable. Your arrogance is sick, and you need to grow up! These are intelligent people who are very concerned by the repressive controls of the Kyoto Agreement. They can see and examine the data and it shows that the whole Human-caused Global Warming trend is NOT definitively proven. Even the Global Warming crowds are seeing this and are now changing the phrase to “Climate Changeâ€. This way it covers all the bases, hot or cold. This is the perfect exposure of the art of deception.
The Environmental battle is a political battle; it is no longer over the environment, which is just used as an excuse to pass more repressive laws on people. It is all over control. Below is a link to a short article that gives the fears of this control and lays it out plainly:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=83452
It is reported by worldnetdaily.com that you hate so much. It is written by Henry Lamb, the founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO).
----------------------------------------
Below is a link to a presentation given last year by Dr. Noah Robinson that shows the global warming crisis for all to see. Dr. Robinson has a PhD in Chemistry and is a professor at the Oregon Institue of Science and Medicine. This is a Government and Public-funded Institue.
http://www.discovery.org/v/30
Obviously, in your mind, Dr. Robinson is an idiot who doesn’t know what he is talking about; even though the data is laid out for all to see.
This is not a Democratic battle, where the side with the greatest number of scientists is the winner. The winner should be the truth, and the Environmentalist side no longer wants to hear any dissent. This is why those who do not agree are punished and insulted.
I am telling you now, that the debate is just BEGINNING! Those who see the myth of human-caused climate change are starting to get organized and are fighting back. Soon our voices will grow and outnumber yours because we are the ones who can see the truth.
Ultimately, your side will lose this battle.
I am a Senior Polymer Research Chemist who has worked in Research and Development for over 27 years of my life. I am no child and I am no idiot. My whole working career has been in Research and I can see the data too, and it does not definitively show that Global Warming is a crisis that is man-made. Thousands and thousands of other scientists see the same and are finally finding a collective voice to speak out. No matter how many times Al Gore says the debate is over, no matter how many insultive words you throw around. it is not over yet. Not by a long shot.
Quote from: Kator01 on December 30, 2008, 02:18:03 PM
Hello,
education needs good scientific basis-knowledge and not layman-viewpoint :
Not when the layman can't even spell. I've already posted the science and it was ignored or misunderstood. I was bringing it to the level of the audience.
Oh, and friends of science is utter crap. Show me the science they have produced. Oh! Damn! They haven't!
Gee, what a surprise.
Cheers
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 31, 2008, 02:17:03 PM
Well magkor you have done a fine job. You have insulted every member that has disagreed with the concept of global-warming; even going so far as to insult my GRAMMER. This attack deserves a response and all my motivation comes down to this: I recognize that the leaders of the Environmental movement need a crisis to implement their grand ideas of global control.
Did I attack your grammar, or simply point out you are not very educated? While there indeed are great people throughout history, and probably even today, who are brilliant, but not educated, you are not likely to be one of them. That's just the law of averages.
But let us assume for a moment you *are* brilliant, if uneducated. History tells us that great intelligence also is associated with mental disease, emotional issues, social insecurity. That is, to believe the anti-AGW lies, you have to 1. have an agenda, such as Inhofe, Bush, Cheney, et a;., or 2. be stupid, 3. be naive and easily swayed or 4. be a paid lackey. There really are no other explanations.
Let us look at the logic, shall we?
1. AGW is shown from a HUGE database of studies and models to be a serious issue.
YET...
2. the most authoritative *overall* study done thus far has severely UNDERestimated the effects of climate change, so...
3.you conclude it's all B.S,
That just makes you not very bright.
Anti-AGW folk say, "It's the sun!" except that we are at a minimum in the cycle and should, according to Earth's climate history, be heading into a glacial period. But we aren't. So what's your new excuse? No sunspots = MORE warming!!!!!
Please...
TIME IS SHORT.
CO2 is already higher than at any time in hundreds of thousands if not millions of years.
WAKE UP.
Not everything is a conspiracy. Reichstag? Conspiracy. Tonkin Gulf? Conspiracy. USS Liberty? Conspiracy. 2000 election? Conspiracy.
But the conspiracy logic fails when:
- the science is BEHIND observations
- global warming is a 100 year-old science, and not a GORE-created fantasy
- the US gov't actively suppresses science and you denialists say NOTHING about gov't interference. (Can you explain to me how the Exxon payoffs and Bush administration shut down of science are PROVEN REALITY, yet you conspiracy people say NOTHING?)
Blah, blah. blah....
WAKE UP.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on December 31, 2008, 02:17:03 PMBelow is the just released report by the U.S. Senate Republican Minority Committee with the consensus of over 650 international experts...
Have you no shame and no common sense? Just-released? Please. It is OLD news, and was stillborn.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/12/inhofes-last-stand/
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/more_on_inhofes_alleged_list_o.php
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/wiki/index.php/Sen._Inhofe%27s_400_Scientists
Seriously, if that crap is the best you can do, just stop.
And don't chide me for being rude when you are committing crimes against humanity. FYI, rude is:
rude
2: lacking refinement or delicacy: c: offensive in manner or action : discourteous
when I am protecting me and mine from lies.
"For the purpose of this Statute, "crime against humanity" means any of the following acts when committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack[14]:
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health."
Those who have lied you into your current stupor of an utter rejection of truth are guilty of crimes against humanity.
Show me the money trail. The trail from Exxon to your "data" is direct, proven, factual. You have no such proof wrt climate change.
Oh, I get in now Magkor. If I am intelligent enough to see the data and it doesn't agree with you interpretation, then I have some type of emotional problem. So anyone who doesn't agree with your view either has a mind of a ten-year old, or is insane in some way; and any data that is presented to you is either too old or just not right. Not only that, now you are threatening that anyone who disagrees with this crap is committing crimes against humanity. Another threat. You want to FORCE it on us whether we agree or not. This is why I am fighting you and why your dangerous attitude needs to be stopped. You can whine and insult and attack all you like. It still does not change the data.
Here we have the brick wall, and it all comes down to politics now. You cry about the CO2 level but Dr. Noah Robinson's presentation deals with that directly. The CO2 level is caused by the lowering of the solubility of Carbon Dioxide in the oceans due to a rise in average global temperature that correlates with the change in solar activity. This rise in global temperature began before human use of vast amounts of fossil fuels and it has kept rising at approximately the same rate, directly correlated with solar activity.
You are pathetic!
You say follow the money trail. Yes, let's follow the money trail of Al Gore himself.
Here is a link to the story: http://newsbusters.org/node/11149:
H]ow Gore buys his "carbon offsets," as revealed by The Tennessean raises serious questions. According to the newspaper's report, Gore buys his carbon offsets through Generation Investment Management:
Gore helped found Generation Investment Management, through which he and others pay for offsets. The firm invests the money in solar, wind and other projects that reduce energy consumption around the globe...
Gore is chairman of the firm and, presumably, draws an income or will make money as its investments prosper. In other words, he "buys" his "carbon offsets" from himself, through a transaction designed to boost his own investments and return a profit to himself. To be blunt, Gore doesn't buy "carbon offsets" through Generation Investment Management - he buys stocks.
Fascinating. So, as Dr. Global Warming travels the world in his private jet while spending 20 times the average American on energy for his home, all the time telling us its okay because he's buying carbon offsets, he's actually purchasing these investments from himself.
Furthermore, and maybe more important, Gore stands to benefit financially in a potentially huge way if more and more people buy into this junk science.
Isn't that special?
So the one who benefits from this whole global warming and carbon credit scam is Al Gore himself.
Oh, wait, that's not good for your side that this is revealed. Too bad. Oh wait, maybe you need to attack the source, the Tennessean Newspaper. It must be a pro-Oil, Nuclear, anti-environmentalist, right-wing extremist, militia, whacko periodical.
Al Gore is promoting this crap because he is the one who will benefit from it tremendously. Again, let's follow the money. The guy is a crook and a liar; and you say that I am the one mentally ill.
Go jump. Your side is going to lose. We are joining together to counteract those who have deceived you and the rest of the world. Once the truth is shown and the lies of Al Gore and exposed, his garbage science will fall.
Quote from: ResinRat2 on January 01, 2009, 02:26:12 PMGore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore, Gore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
For chrissakes.... get a reality check.
Where is your science. How about not posting till you've got some.
Cheers
In my line of work i get to talk to allot of people and i have noticed a massive shift in people's thinking towards governments and views on climate change over the past 5 years, they simply dont buy what the governments saying.
People really are waking up!.
Oh yeah, that's a really intelligent reply Magkor.
I see you also faked my quote. You are a liar now yourself. That quote from Jan 1st you altered. They are not my words. Liar! A perfect example of someone who takes after Al Gore.
I already posted my science. Dr. Noah Robinsons's 2007 presentation blows your BS science away. You just don't want to admit it.
I gave links to PEER REVIEWED papers that you were waiting so breathlessly for, and I followed the money, right to Gore's pocket! Your arguments are garbage.
Quoted from the Senate Report:
"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is 'settled.' "
I guess to you they are all oil-loving, anti-environmental, 10 year old minded idiots.
You are the one who is brain-washed, and you are going to lose.
Combustion engines actually are better for the biosphere because the fuel is compressed in the compression chamber.
This means the fuel is burned under high pressure atmosphere much more clean then using any other methode.
If we for example would just burn the fuel without compressing it the pollution of the exhaust gasses are much, much more dirty because of bad partial uncomplete burning.
So if we have to burn the stuff it is better to burn it under the highest pressure possible.
But we are burning too much of it and this in a short periode of time.
It's a money thing really, it does not have to be this way, but the system keeps the economy going very nicely.
So my advise is to burn all the oil as fast as possible.
When the oil is gone we cannot do anything other then switch to alternative tecniques.
The sooner the better.
Marco.
ResinRat,
Notice that the irrational one keeps saying the same thing expecting a different result.
Also take into consideration that the irrational one really wanted to go on with his education and apparently could not.
DrSpark (a retired computer systems engineer for the irrational one to belittle) LOL
Hello ResinRat,
some time ago I have been attacked on a personal level ( here your grammer is a reflection or part of your of your personality ) by an it-chief of a swiss bank where I was doing a coding-concept for an SAP-Application.
A software-engineer had made some grave error and the application failed.
So in talking out this situation the chief suddenly attacked me personally by simply stating I was a failure myself. When we went out of meeting one of my fellow coworker said to me : "We have won the case, he has attacked you on a personal level. It is common management-knowledge that - if a person runs out of arguements or is confronted with sound arguments or proof - he shows this behaviour- this is his way out of the situation"
Period
I simply do nor pay any attention to this scrap any longer because any amount of scientific proof ( and the facts at www.physiker.com/klima are clear ) you might present will give more rise to more silly counter-attacks.
You can not enlighten a person of such an attitude. It is scientifically prooven that you only reinforce that content of awareness the person already has.
So, is is simply a waste of time.
Sad enough.
Regards
Kator01
Hi ResinRat,
here is the scientific article I referred to - written by Dr. Robert Schwarz in
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology #39:
http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780120152391 (http://www.powells.com/biblio?isbn=9780120152391)
It is in chapter 3 :
Chapter 3
Metacognitive Experiences and the Intricacies of Setting People Straight: Implications for Debiasing and Public Information Campaigns
Norbert Schwarz, Lawrence J. Sanna, Ian Skurnik, and Carolyn Yoon
I think it is worth reading.
Here is the original Study as pdf :
http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schwarz_et_al_setting-people-straight.pdf (http://sitemaker.umich.edu/norbert.schwarz/files/07_aep_schwarz_et_al_setting-people-straight.pdf)
Also of interest : Goebbel-Propaganda-Principles :
http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html (http://www.psywarrior.com/Goebbels.html)
Kator01
interesting read kator, still laughing that you call it a 'scientific' article.
You are laughing at yourself, dear.
You have not even got a clue of what this study is all about
Kator
Quote from: Kator01 on January 02, 2009, 08:31:24 PM
You are laughing at yourself, dear.
You have not even got a clue of what this study is all about
Kator
well i guess you set me straight... ::)
first off, i was laughing at
you calling it scientific... second, i am
not your 'dear'. interesting that you post a reference to a social psychology article and then proceed to tell me what i am doing and what i do or don't have a clue about... how typical.
actually i do, it's more psycho-semantic garbage. just like the global warming debate. one side says it's this, they can't prove it of course. then other side says it's not this, it's that. and of course they can't prove it either. social psychology is no different. it's pseudo science. it's just wasting what precious time you have on argument.
So what has all this chit chat have to do with global warming ???
Quote from: -[marco]- on January 03, 2009, 04:49:39 AM
So what has all this chit chat have to do with global warming ???
who really knows Marco, but i think to sum it up, its jut another bullshit excuse to tax all of us.
Oh yeah, that's a really intelligent reply Magkor.
I see you also faked my quote. You are a liar now yourself. That quote from Jan 1st you altered. They are not my words. Liar! A perfect example of someone who takes after Al Gore.
I already posted my science. Dr. Noah Robinsons's 2007 presentation blows your BS science away. You just don't want to admit it.
I gave links to PEER REVIEWED papers that you were waiting so breathlessly for, and I followed the money, right to Gore's pocket! Your arguments are garbage.
Quoted from the Senate Report:
"The distinguished scientists featured in this new report are experts in diverse fields, including: climatology; geology; biology; glaciology; biogeography; meteorology; oceanography; economics; chemistry; mathematics; environmental sciences; engineering; physics and paleoclimatology. Some of those profiled have won Nobel Prizes for their outstanding contribution to their field of expertise and many shared a portion of the UN IPCC Nobel Peace Prize with Vice President Gore.
Additionally, these scientists hail from prestigious institutions worldwide, including: Harvard University; NASA; National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) and the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR); Massachusetts Institute of Technology; the UN IPCC; the Danish National Space Center; U.S. Department of Energy; Princeton University; the Environmental Protection Agency; University of Pennsylvania; Hebrew University of Jerusalem; the International Arctic Research Centre; the Pasteur Institute in Paris; Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; the University of Helsinki; the National Academy of Sciences of the U.S., France, and Russia; the University of Pretoria; University of Notre Dame; Stockholm University; University of Melbourne; Columbia University; the World Federation of Scientists; and the University of London.
The voices of many of these hundreds of scientists serve as a direct challenge to the often media-hyped "consensus" that the debate is 'settled.' "
I guess to you they are all oil-loving, anti-environmental, 10 year old minded idiots.
You are the one who is brain-washed, and you are going to lose.
Why are you repeating your posts, Resinrat ?
Quote from: -[marco]- on January 03, 2009, 04:49:39 AM
So what has all this chit chat have to do with global warming ???
are you ready to talk marco??
this is not ment to be rude but i assure your reserch is a big part of this puzzel :)
look at what you figured out in oregon ;) dc lines cross ac lines....
lets look at a pic of the earth lay lines... now lets look at the grid.....
now lets tie it all togather .... 8)
;D
shall we?
ok sclar waves... well the earth has em too .. and what if the grid was layed near them to cancel them ;)
like block em so they are not transmitting what is the result? drifting?
just thinking alould
ist!
indeed im not a siceintest i use laymans words and i can't spell but we all know those laque of abilitys do not make one dumb... ;D
to judge anyone is WRONG ....
im wide awake guys .....
William you are replying without reading. >:(
AT LEAST READ before replying.
Quote from: -[marco]- on January 03, 2009, 09:55:47 AM
William you are replying without reading. >:(
AT LEAST READ before replying.
@marco im sorry
you know my habbits all to well ;D
im out of here ;)
i hope we can fix it ....
sorry global warming is not my thing power generation is... :)
back to building ... at the bench as per usual.... :)
ist!
Of course Global Warming doesn't appear to exist because the U.S. Oil Administration has blocked out or squelched the voice of scientists who have told the truth.
Global warming, what global warming? ;)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090114/ap_on_re_us/snowstorm
I wish they would send some Global Warming my way........ ;D
This is a little like "Where's Waldo"....see if you can spot the Global Warming.......
http://vortex.plymouth.edu/uschill.gif
I truly hope Barry Soetoro A.K.A. POTUS elect will bring up Global Warming to the throngs of frozen stiff, hypnotized obots. Now that would be RICH!!!!
One thing about "global warming" that has always puzzled me is this:
=====================================================
Fossil fuel would not exist naturally, because of natural biomass decay all calorific content is used up before it then becomes sedimentary chalk etc. The carbon always gets put back into the biosphere before natural burial occurs.
There was a time when all of the buried carbon (coal,oil,gas) was above ground, probably before some massive meteor strike that buried it all and seperated it from the biosphere.
The planet, it´s atmosphere, its liquids and its solids is for all intents and purposes a closed system. So it follows that prior to the one off creation of fossil fuel then surely all of that carbon existed above ground in the form of plants and animals.
The earth will readily turn that trapped carbon back into plants and animals in quite a fast manner. I can speak from first hand experience that increasing the CO2 content of the atmosphere from 300ppm (natural) to around 700ppm makes a DRASTIC difference to the plant. It grows much more vigorously and it also grows with much more health, the stems are fatter, the foliage is fuller, the fruit is heavier. Only going to around 2000ppm do you see what appears to be fertilizer burn occuring, the leaves curl and start to yellow and die at the tips. In summary; a CO2 level double what it is would yield a much denser biosphere, more plants thus more animals.
So I have a feeling that global warming may be some form of mass myth, propogated to try and take us down the peak oil curve with as controlled a descent as possible?
I´m not saying burn it all up real fast, I myself think we should use as little fuel, food, resources as we can. I´m just saying that maybe for some reason we´re being told it´s bad news when perhaps it isn´t?
=====================================================
With regard to fossil fuel useage and marketing as a whole there´s quite a puzzle there too, we all know that standard ICE carburettor can be greatly improved, vaporization prior to air mixing could be easily employed by the big manufacturers to give 50% increases on MPG as well as many other methods. People often say "it´s big oil corp doing it to sell more oil". But that argument is flawed, it would make much more financial sense for big oil corp to sell us less at the same price, after all their inventory is finite. So really big oil corp should endorse fuel effinciency and actually invest in fuel saving tech. whilst at the same time creeping up their prices by limiting production. But this thought raises the question:
Then just why are we encouraged to use more oil? One idea I´ve entertained is that some alien race that maybe prefers a slightly richer CO2 level, genetically engineered humans for the purpose of mining the planet of its ores and fossil fuel. When the planet is fully mined maybe the aliens will return to set up home. And so the aliens are now manipulating us to use more oil. Admittedly this theory is way out there, but it makes more sense to me than saying the oil cartels want to waste product.
Now 2021 p.C.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung)
a. 2016 was the warmest year since systematic measurements began in 1880. It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
b.
The IPCC (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) writes in its fifth (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC)assessment (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)report (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC) published in 2015 that it is extremely likely that humans caused more than 50% of the warming observed between 1951 and 2010.
50%
search machine : deutsche Wetterdienst
Meteorologische Bodenmesstechnik - DWD www.dwd.de (http://www.dwd.de) › pdf_einzelbaende › leitfaden6_pdf
page 172
VERGLEICH KONVENTIONELLER MESSTECHNIK MIT MODERNEN SENSOREN
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY WITH MODERN SENSORS
page 173
17.2 Vergleich der Messwerte von Flüssigkeitsthermo-metern mit digitalen Sensoren
17.2 Comparison of readings from liquid thermometers with digital sensors
Probleme gibt es bei allen Stationen insofern, als fast überall in Europa und auch weltweit Ende der 1980er/Anfang der 1990er Jahre die Temperatur statt mit Quecksilberthermometer nun mit elektronischen Verfahren erfasst wird. Beim Wechsel vom Quecksilberthermometer zu ,,modernen" Messmethoden werden viel raschere Änderungen der Temperatur als bisher erfasst. Dabei ,,pro¤tiert" vor allem das Maximum, bei dem nun Spitzen im Minuten-, zum Teil im Sekunden-Takt erfasst werden. Dies ergibt Maxima, die oftmals 2 K höher als beim trägeren Quecksilberthermometer liegen. Möglicherweise ist ein kleiner Teil des seit 1990 erfolgten weltweiten Temperatur-anstiegs tatsächlich durch eine Änderung der Messmethoden vorgetäuscht – was noch zu untersuchen wäre!In Mitteleuropa werden die Klimatagesmittel nach der al-ten ,,Mannheimer" Methode errechnet, wobei dasMaximum keine Rolle spielt. In vielen Teilen der Erde, z. B. in den USA und in den Tropen werden jedoch die Mittel durch errechnet. Auch die Wetterhütten haben je nach Güte des Farbanstrichs durchaus Ein uss auf die Strahlungseigenschaften und damit auf die Temperaturangaben. Zu dieser Problematik merkte Dr. Klaus Müller, Leiter der Gruppe ,,Stadtmessnetz" des Instituts für Meteorologie, FU Berlin, an: ,,Nur ein Beispiel: Tagesmit-teltemperatur am 1.1.2009: Große Hütte (Wild): –3,3 °C; kleine Hütte (Wild): –3,0 °C; Aluminium-Hütte: –3,2 °C; natürlich belüftete KunststoÛütte: –3,0 °C; künstlich belüftete Kunst-stoÛütte: –2,8 °C. Gerade die alte Wetterhütte zeigt nach An-gaben des DWD unzuverlässige Lufttemperaturmessungen mit Fehlern bis zu 2,5 K. Dies ist einer der Gründe, diesen Hüttentyp im synoptischen Messnetz auszumustern. Für eine alte Klimareihe wäre dies eine Katastrophe, so dass auch bei uns (FU Berlin) der alte Wetterhüttentyp für die Messungen im Bo-tanischen Garten erhalten bleibt."An der Bundeswehr-Station Lechfeld sind von 1998 bis 2006 Parallelmessungen mit elektrischen (Pt 100) und Quecksil-berthermometern durchgeführt worden (Hager, Neusäß bei Augsburg). Im Mittel dieser neun Jahre ergab sich für das Maximum eine um 0,93 K über und für das Minimum eine um 0,88 K unter den Quecksilbermessungen liegende Temperatur. Dies gilt verallgemeinert wahrscheinlich für ganz. B.yern. Für andere Gebiete können die Unterschiede durchaus größer sein, insbesondere in Regionen mit hoher Strahlung. Daher sind hierzu weitere Untersuchungen notwendig. An der privaten Station Horben bei Freiburg werden seit 1998 Quecksilber- und Elektronik-Thermometer genutzt. Letzteres zeigt nach Auskunft des Betreibers im Mittel 0,2 K höhere Maxima und ebenfalls 0,2 K niedrigere Minima an.[/size]
There are problems at all stations insofar as almost everywhere in Europe and also worldwide at the end of the 1980s / beginning of the 1990s the temperature is now recorded using electronic methods instead of a mercury thermometer. When switching from the mercury thermometer to "modern" measuring methods, changes in temperature are recorded much faster than before. Above all, the maximum "benefits" at which peaks are now recorded every minute, sometimes every second. This results in maxima that are often 2 K higher than with the more sluggish mercury thermometer. It is possible that a small part of the global temperature increase that has taken place since 1990 is actually simulated by a change in the measurement methods - which still needs to be investigated! In Central Europe, the daily climate averages are calculated using the old "Mannheim" method, whereby the maximum does not matter. In many parts of the world, e.g. B. in the USA and in the tropics, however, the means are calculated by. Depending on the quality of the paint, the weather huts also have an in uence on the radiation properties and thus on the temperature information. On this issue, Dr. Klaus Müller, head of the "Stadtmessnetz" group at the Institute for Meteorology, FU Berlin, to: "Just one example: Average daily temperature on January 1st, 2009: Large hut (Wild): –3.3 ° C; small hut (game): -3.0 ° C; Aluminum hut: -3.2 ° C; naturally ventilated plastic box: –3.0 ° C; artificially ventilated plastic box: –2.8 ° C. According to the DWD, the old weather hut in particular shows unreliable air temperature measurements with errors of up to 2.5 K. This is one of the reasons for decommissioning this type of hut in the synoptic measurement network. This would be a catastrophe for an old climate series, so that we (FU Berlin) will keep the old weather hut type for measurements in the Botanical Garden. "From 1998 to 2006, parallel measurements with electrical (Pt 100 ) and mercury thermometers (Hager, Neusäß near Augsburg). In the mean of these nine years, the maximum temperature was 0.93 K above and the minimum 0.88 K below the mercury measurements. Generally speaking, this probably applies to the whole. B.yern. For other areas the differences can be greater, especially in regions with high radiation. Therefore further investigations are necessary. Mercury and electronic thermometers have been used at the private station in Horben near Freiburg since 1998. According to the operator, the latter shows an average of 0.2 K higher maxima and 0.2 K lower minima.
17.3 Vergleich der Strahlungsmessungen 17.3 Comparison of the radiation measurements
17.4 Vergleich von Niederschlagsmesswerten 17.4 Comparison of precipitation readings
Bodenversiegelung Ground sealing : 2° C in average Bioclimate or City/Town climate change
GHG independent we have up to 4° Kelvin meteorological temperaturchange to pre-industrial Reference-temperature
agricultural ground temperature change before/after tillage : 10° Kelvin
world population
https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038 (https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038)
https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html (https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html)
1880 : 1500 Mio. inhabitants
2020 : 7500 Mio. inhabitants
Quote from: lancaIV on January 15, 2021, 08:23:03 PM
Now 2021 p.C.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung)
a. 2016 was the warmest year since systematic measurements began in 1880. It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
b.
The IPCC (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) writes in its fifth (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC)assessment (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)report (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC) published in 2015 that it is extremely likely that humans caused more than 50% of the warming observed between 1951 and 2010.
50%
search machine : deutsche Wetterdienst
Meteorologische Bodenmesstechnik - DWD www.dwd.de (http://www.dwd.de) › pdf_einzelbaende › leitfaden6_pdf
page 172
VERGLEICH KONVENTIONELLER MESSTECHNIK MIT MODERNEN SENSOREN
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY WITH MODERN SENSORS
page 173
17.2 Vergleich der Messwerte von Flüssigkeitsthermo-metern mit digitalen Sensoren
17.2 Comparison of readings from liquid thermometers with digital sensors
Probleme gibt es bei allen Stationen insofern, als fast überall in Europa und auch weltweit Ende der 1980er/Anfang der 1990er Jahre die Temperatur statt mit Quecksilberthermometer nun mit elektronischen Verfahren erfasst wird. Beim Wechsel vom Quecksilberthermometer zu ,,modernen" Messmethoden werden viel raschere Änderungen der Temperatur als bisher erfasst. Dabei ,,pro¤tiert" vor allem das Maximum, bei dem nun Spitzen im Minuten-, zum Teil im Sekunden-Takt erfasst werden. Dies ergibt Maxima, die oftmals 2 K höher als beim trägeren Quecksilberthermometer liegen. Möglicherweise ist ein kleiner Teil des seit 1990 erfolgten weltweiten Temperatur-anstiegs tatsächlich durch eine Änderung der Messmethoden vorgetäuscht – was noch zu untersuchen wäre!In Mitteleuropa werden die Klimatagesmittel nach der al-ten ,,Mannheimer" Methode errechnet, wobei dasMaximum keine Rolle spielt. In vielen Teilen der Erde, z. B. in den USA und in den Tropen werden jedoch die Mittel durch errechnet. Auch die Wetterhütten haben je nach Güte des Farbanstrichs durchaus Ein uss auf die Strahlungseigenschaften und damit auf die Temperaturangaben. Zu dieser Problematik merkte Dr. Klaus Müller, Leiter der Gruppe ,,Stadtmessnetz" des Instituts für Meteorologie, FU Berlin, an: ,,Nur ein Beispiel: Tagesmit-teltemperatur am 1.1.2009: Große Hütte (Wild): –3,3 °C; kleine Hütte (Wild): –3,0 °C; Aluminium-Hütte: –3,2 °C; natürlich belüftete KunststoÛütte: –3,0 °C; künstlich belüftete Kunst-stoÛütte: –2,8 °C. Gerade die alte Wetterhütte zeigt nach An-gaben des DWD unzuverlässige Lufttemperaturmessungen mit Fehlern bis zu 2,5 K. Dies ist einer der Gründe, diesen Hüttentyp im synoptischen Messnetz auszumustern. Für eine alte Klimareihe wäre dies eine Katastrophe, so dass auch bei uns (FU Berlin) der alte Wetterhüttentyp für die Messungen im Bo-tanischen Garten erhalten bleibt."An der Bundeswehr-Station Lechfeld sind von 1998 bis 2006 Parallelmessungen mit elektrischen (Pt 100) und Quecksil-berthermometern durchgeführt worden (Hager, Neusäß bei Augsburg). Im Mittel dieser neun Jahre ergab sich für das Maximum eine um 0,93 K über und für das Minimum eine um 0,88 K unter den Quecksilbermessungen liegende Temperatur. Dies gilt verallgemeinert wahrscheinlich für ganz. B.yern. Für andere Gebiete können die Unterschiede durchaus größer sein, insbesondere in Regionen mit hoher Strahlung. Daher sind hierzu weitere Untersuchungen notwendig. An der privaten Station Horben bei Freiburg werden seit 1998 Quecksilber- und Elektronik-Thermometer genutzt. Letzteres zeigt nach Auskunft des Betreibers im Mittel 0,2 K höhere Maxima und ebenfalls 0,2 K niedrigere Minima an.[/size]
There are problems at all stations insofar as almost everywhere in Europe and also worldwide at the end of the 1980s / beginning of the 1990s the temperature is now recorded using electronic methods instead of a mercury thermometer. When switching from the mercury thermometer to "modern" measuring methods, changes in temperature are recorded much faster than before. Above all, the maximum "benefits" at which peaks are now recorded every minute, sometimes every second. This results in maxima that are often 2 K higher than with the more sluggish mercury thermometer. It is possible that a small part of the global temperature increase that has taken place since 1990 is actually simulated by a change in the measurement methods - which still needs to be investigated! In Central Europe, the daily climate averages are calculated using the old "Mannheim" method, whereby the maximum does not matter. In many parts of the world, e.g. B. in the USA and in the tropics, however, the means are calculated by. Depending on the quality of the paint, the weather huts also have an in uence on the radiation properties and thus on the temperature information. On this issue, Dr. Klaus Müller, head of the "Stadtmessnetz" group at the Institute for Meteorology, FU Berlin, to: "Just one example: Average daily temperature on January 1st, 2009: Large hut (Wild): –3.3 ° C; small hut (game): -3.0 ° C; Aluminum hut: -3.2 ° C; naturally ventilated plastic box: –3.0 ° C; artificially ventilated plastic box: –2.8 ° C. According to the DWD, the old weather hut in particular shows unreliable air temperature measurements with errors of up to 2.5 K. This is one of the reasons for decommissioning this type of hut in the synoptic measurement network. This would be a catastrophe for an old climate series, so that we (FU Berlin) will keep the old weather hut type for measurements in the Botanical Garden. "From 1998 to 2006, parallel measurements with electrical (Pt 100 ) and mercury thermometers (Hager, Neusäß near Augsburg). In the mean of these nine years, the maximum temperature was 0.93 K above and the minimum 0.88 K below the mercury measurements. Generally speaking, this probably applies to the whole. B.yern. For other areas the differences can be greater, especially in regions with high radiation. Therefore further investigations are necessary. Mercury and electronic thermometers have been used at the private station in Horben near Freiburg since 1998. According to the operator, the latter shows an average of 0.2 K higher maxima and 0.2 K lower minima.
17.3 Vergleich der Strahlungsmessungen 17.3 Comparison of the radiation measurements
17.4 Vergleich von Niederschlagsmesswerten 17.4 Comparison of precipitation readings
Bodenversiegelung Ground sealing : 2° C in average Bioclimate or City/Town climate change
GHG independent we have up to 4° Kelvin meteorological temperaturchange to pre-industrial Reference-temperature
agricultural ground temperature change before/after tillage : 10° Kelvin
world population
https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038 (https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038)
https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html (https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html)
1880 : 1500 Mio. inhabitants
2020 : 7500 Mio. inhabitants
Are you sure your opening statment is true ?
and what happend to all the
Quote from: lancaIV on January 15, 2021, 08:23:03 PM
Now 2021 p.C.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung)
a. 2016 was the warmest year since systematic measurements began in 1880. It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
b.
The IPCC (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change) writes in its fifth (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC)assessment (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change)report (https://k27sr35yhdvurv3e26dpmlrpx4--de-m-wikipedia-org.translate.goog/wiki/F%C3%BCnfter_Sachstandsbericht_des_IPCC) published in 2015 that it is extremely likely that humans caused more than 50% of the warming observed between 1951 and 2010.
50%
search machine : deutsche Wetterdienst
Meteorologische Bodenmesstechnik - DWD www.dwd.de (http://www.dwd.de) › pdf_einzelbaende › leitfaden6_pdf
page 172
VERGLEICH KONVENTIONELLER MESSTECHNIK MIT MODERNEN SENSOREN
COMPARISON OF CONVENTIONAL MEASUREMENT TECHNOLOGY WITH MODERN SENSORS
page 173
17.2 Vergleich der Messwerte von Flüssigkeitsthermo-metern mit digitalen Sensoren
17.2 Comparison of readings from liquid thermometers with digital sensors
Probleme gibt es bei allen Stationen insofern, als fast überall in Europa und auch weltweit Ende der 1980er/Anfang der 1990er Jahre die Temperatur statt mit Quecksilberthermometer nun mit elektronischen Verfahren erfasst wird. Beim Wechsel vom Quecksilberthermometer zu ,,modernen" Messmethoden werden viel raschere Änderungen der Temperatur als bisher erfasst. Dabei ,,pro¤tiert" vor allem das Maximum, bei dem nun Spitzen im Minuten-, zum Teil im Sekunden-Takt erfasst werden. Dies ergibt Maxima, die oftmals 2 K höher als beim trägeren Quecksilberthermometer liegen. Möglicherweise ist ein kleiner Teil des seit 1990 erfolgten weltweiten Temperatur-anstiegs tatsächlich durch eine Änderung der Messmethoden vorgetäuscht – was noch zu untersuchen wäre!In Mitteleuropa werden die Klimatagesmittel nach der al-ten ,,Mannheimer" Methode errechnet, wobei dasMaximum keine Rolle spielt. In vielen Teilen der Erde, z. B. in den USA und in den Tropen werden jedoch die Mittel durch errechnet. Auch die Wetterhütten haben je nach Güte des Farbanstrichs durchaus Ein uss auf die Strahlungseigenschaften und damit auf die Temperaturangaben. Zu dieser Problematik merkte Dr. Klaus Müller, Leiter der Gruppe ,,Stadtmessnetz" des Instituts für Meteorologie, FU Berlin, an: ,,Nur ein Beispiel: Tagesmit-teltemperatur am 1.1.2009: Große Hütte (Wild): –3,3 °C; kleine Hütte (Wild): –3,0 °C; Aluminium-Hütte: –3,2 °C; natürlich belüftete KunststoÛütte: –3,0 °C; künstlich belüftete Kunst-stoÛütte: –2,8 °C. Gerade die alte Wetterhütte zeigt nach An-gaben des DWD unzuverlässige Lufttemperaturmessungen mit Fehlern bis zu 2,5 K. Dies ist einer der Gründe, diesen Hüttentyp im synoptischen Messnetz auszumustern. Für eine alte Klimareihe wäre dies eine Katastrophe, so dass auch bei uns (FU Berlin) der alte Wetterhüttentyp für die Messungen im Bo-tanischen Garten erhalten bleibt."An der Bundeswehr-Station Lechfeld sind von 1998 bis 2006 Parallelmessungen mit elektrischen (Pt 100) und Quecksil-berthermometern durchgeführt worden (Hager, Neusäß bei Augsburg). Im Mittel dieser neun Jahre ergab sich für das Maximum eine um 0,93 K über und für das Minimum eine um 0,88 K unter den Quecksilbermessungen liegende Temperatur. Dies gilt verallgemeinert wahrscheinlich für ganz. B.yern. Für andere Gebiete können die Unterschiede durchaus größer sein, insbesondere in Regionen mit hoher Strahlung. Daher sind hierzu weitere Untersuchungen notwendig. An der privaten Station Horben bei Freiburg werden seit 1998 Quecksilber- und Elektronik-Thermometer genutzt. Letzteres zeigt nach Auskunft des Betreibers im Mittel 0,2 K höhere Maxima und ebenfalls 0,2 K niedrigere Minima an.[/size]
There are problems at all stations insofar as almost everywhere in Europe and also worldwide at the end of the 1980s / beginning of the 1990s the temperature is now recorded using electronic methods instead of a mercury thermometer. When switching from the mercury thermometer to "modern" measuring methods, changes in temperature are recorded much faster than before. Above all, the maximum "benefits" at which peaks are now recorded every minute, sometimes every second. This results in maxima that are often 2 K higher than with the more sluggish mercury thermometer. It is possible that a small part of the global temperature increase that has taken place since 1990 is actually simulated by a change in the measurement methods - which still needs to be investigated! In Central Europe, the daily climate averages are calculated using the old "Mannheim" method, whereby the maximum does not matter. In many parts of the world, e.g. B. in the USA and in the tropics, however, the means are calculated by. Depending on the quality of the paint, the weather huts also have an in uence on the radiation properties and thus on the temperature information. On this issue, Dr. Klaus Müller, head of the "Stadtmessnetz" group at the Institute for Meteorology, FU Berlin, to: "Just one example: Average daily temperature on January 1st, 2009: Large hut (Wild): –3.3 ° C; small hut (game): -3.0 ° C; Aluminum hut: -3.2 ° C; naturally ventilated plastic box: –3.0 ° C; artificially ventilated plastic box: –2.8 ° C. According to the DWD, the old weather hut in particular shows unreliable air temperature measurements with errors of up to 2.5 K. This is one of the reasons for decommissioning this type of hut in the synoptic measurement network. This would be a catastrophe for an old climate series, so that we (FU Berlin) will keep the old weather hut type for measurements in the Botanical Garden. "From 1998 to 2006, parallel measurements with electrical (Pt 100 ) and mercury thermometers (Hager, Neusäß near Augsburg). In the mean of these nine years, the maximum temperature was 0.93 K above and the minimum 0.88 K below the mercury measurements. Generally speaking, this probably applies to the whole. B.yern. For other areas the differences can be greater, especially in regions with high radiation. Therefore further investigations are necessary. Mercury and electronic thermometers have been used at the private station in Horben near Freiburg since 1998. According to the operator, the latter shows an average of 0.2 K higher maxima and 0.2 K lower minima.
17.3 Vergleich der Strahlungsmessungen 17.3 Comparison of the radiation measurements
17.4 Vergleich von Niederschlagsmesswerten 17.4 Comparison of precipitation readings
Bodenversiegelung Ground sealing : 2° C in average Bioclimate or City/Town climate change
GHG independent we have up to 4° Kelvin meteorological temperaturchange to pre-industrial Reference-temperature
agricultural ground temperature change before/after tillage : 10° Kelvin
world population
https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038 (https://www.kas.de/c/document_library/get_file?uuid=2826d468-3221-63b2-4b62-15adb1a3ef84&groupId=252038)
https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html (https://www.oekosystem-erde.de/html/bevoelkerungszunahme.html)
1880 : 1500 Mio. inhabitants
2020 : 7500 Mio. inhabitants
Are you sure your opening statement is true ?
and what happened to all the 'page formatting' in your 'cut and past' in your quote i wouldn't mind betting you haven't bothered
to Analise it your self?
So what's the point of wasting space with unreadable unformulated crud ?
it's a wonder you haven't converted it to binary to wast more space or is that something your working on ?
Any way can you
please 'cut your point to the post', what is your point in one or two short comprehensible sentences?
SIL
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globale_Erw%25C3%25A4rmung)
2016 was the warmest year since systematic measurements began in 1880.
It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No,AG,it is NOT possible to short this "dwd"- statement to 2 sentences !The facts of uncertainity have to be clarified with this greater texte !
And more real and correct study/ies,as explained !
When we have in our calculations in sum up to 4°K misreadings related Kyoto Conference 80% GHG-reduction and Paris Conference 1,5-2°K temperature increase hold we have to reduce this analytical/measuring error !
The error is not energy art&kind consume related !
And these error statements are known since the 80' from the last century,the parlamentarians and eco-lobbyistsare manipulating the citizens for decades and demand eco-taxes and CO2-emission certification tax !
The green parties in parliaments,the FFF,Greenpeace,Robin Wood,the IPCC :
their actions soft suggestive-manipulative facts based ! Credibility !
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/verwirrspiel-um-die-absolute-globale-mitteltemperatur/ (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://scilogs.spektrum.de/klimalounge/verwirrspiel-um-die-absolute-globale-mitteltemperatur/)
For example, 1961-1990 was 0.10 ° C warmer than 1951-1980.
from the dwd-pdf :
There are problems at all stations insofar as almost everywhere in Europe and also worldwide at the end of the 1980s / beginning of the 1990s the temperature is now recorded using electronic methods instead of a mercury thermometer. When switching from the mercury thermometer to "modern" measuring methods, changes in temperature are recorded much faster than before. Above all, the maximum "benefits" at which peaks are now recorded every minute, sometimes every second. This results in maxima that are often 2 K higher than with the more sluggish mercury thermometer.
REPEAT :
This results in maxima that are often 2 K higher than with the more sluggish mercury thermometer.
small part,maxima/medium ? ::) related " It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times. "
It is possible that a small part of the global temperature increase that has taken place since 1990 is actually simulated by a change in the measurement methods - which still needs to be investigated!
end 80/beginning 90 temperature measure technology station-by-station change and climate temperature :
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/langde-310px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg/langde-310px-Global_Temperature_Anomaly.svg.png)
1990 - 2020 : 0,7 °K increase
land-ocean temperature
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.focus.de/wissen/klima/energie-von-1-3-milliarden-kochenden-wasserkesseln-waermer-als-je-zuvor-meerwasser-erreicht-2020-neues-rekordhoch_id_12868896.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.focus.de/wissen/klima/energie-von-1-3-milliarden-kochenden-wasserkesseln-waermer-als-je-zuvor-meerwasser-erreicht-2020-neues-rekordhoch_id_12868896.html)
Two independent data series that go back to 1955 served as the basis.
question : meteorological data measurement between 1955 and 1990,1990-2020 ?
We know that the global mean temperature in the period 1961-1990 was 14.0 ± 0.5 ° C (Jones et al 1999 (https://translate.google.com/website?sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/1999RG900002/abstract;jsessionid%3DE18F6DB4E04785FB9603A354EF5D289A.f03t01) ).
assuming all data measured by : mercury thermometer
the given spread arithmetical global mean temperature freedome 2020, 14.0 ± 0.5 ° C + 0.7° C :
14-0,5 = 13,5 + 0,7 = 14,2 14 + 0,5 + 0,7 = 15,2
less technical measurement errors
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it is only known within an uncertainty range of around 1 ° C.
It was around 1.1 ° C warmer than in pre-industrial times.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to the Paris Agreement, global warming should be limited to well below 2 degrees compared to the pre-industrial temperature level - if possible even to 1.5 ° C (see my article on the German emissions budget (https://aj2vmeq4uxgwgr2zh2qkdxxec4--scilogs-spektrum-de.translate.goog/klimalounge/die-koalitionsgespraeche-und-das-deutsche-emissionsbudget/) ).
Error potential neutralized climate change modelling +sun cycle + planetary magnetospheric change !
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.scinexx.de/news/kosmos/ein-neuer-sonnenzyklus-hat-begonnen/ (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.scinexx.de/news/kosmos/ein-neuer-sonnenzyklus-hat-begonnen/)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.weltderphysik.de/gebiet/erde/erde/sonnenwind/ (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.weltderphysik.de/gebiet/erde/erde/sonnenwind/)
The earth, on the other hand, has very good protection against particles from space: it has a strong magnetic field and an atmosphere. The charged particles from the solar wind and cosmic rays are deflected by the magnetic field in such a way that they circle around the earth in a kind of storage ring, known as the Van Allen Belt. In doing so, they deform the earth's magnetic field - the stronger the solar wind, the stronger. These changes in the magnetic field can even be measured on the earth's surface.
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.mdr.de/wissen/umwelt/umpolung-des-erdmagnetfeldes-dauert-jahrtausende-100.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.mdr.de/wissen/umwelt/umpolung-des-erdmagnetfeldes-dauert-jahrtausende-100.html)
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://weather.com/de-DE/wissen/astronomie/news/2020-05-27-magnetfeld-der-erde-schwacht-sich-ab (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://weather.com/de-DE/wissen/astronomie/news/2020-05-27-magnetfeld-der-erde-schwacht-sich-ab)
Anomaly spreads and migrates The development should always be kept in mind. According to ESA, the Earth's magnetic field has lost an average of around 9 percent of its strength over the past two centuries, with the decline in the area of the South Atlantic anomaly being particularly strong: There, the minimum field strength has fallen from around 24,000 nanoteslas to 22,000 nanoteslas - Tesla since 1970 is the unit for the flux density of alternating magnetic fields.
But here the earth magnetic field as shield is important for climatic influence !
step-by-step changes !
https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html (https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/sunearth/solar-events-news/Does-the-Solar-Cycle-Affect-Earths-Climate.html)
While the magnitude of those changes would likely be small – around a couple of tenths of degrees in the global mean, because solar irradiance changes slowly on decadal time scales – there is some evidence for solar-cycle related regional enhancements of the effects in the North Atlantic and surrounding regions.
In addition, phases of low solar activity can even influence the earth's climate: several times in history, times with a particularly calm sun led to a cooling of the climate (https://qzjoycrj4eb5sdodx7ipqbszua--www-scinexx-de.translate.goog/news/geowissen/sonnenzyklus-beeinflusste-klima-mitteleuropas/) with noticeably cold winters, as historical data suggests. However: The warming caused by anthropogenic climate change will not be able to stop even a low level of solar activity.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226454722_Lunar_Influences_On_Climate (https://www.researchgate.net/publication/226454722_Lunar_Influences_On_Climate)
https://www.sciencealert.com/the-moon-really-does-impact-rainfall-on-earth-study-finds (https://www.sciencealert.com/the-moon-really-does-impact-rainfall-on-earth-study-finds)
1999 : https://www.nature.com/news/1999/990624/full/news990624-9.html (https://www.nature.com/news/1999/990624/full/news990624-9.html)
all possible sources of variation should be investigated before blaming human activity alone for observed changes in climatic parameters.
for a catalytic process often for iniciation very low forces are in need ! Lawine-/Domino-effect !
Global Warming and/or Global Cooling
The same planetary average temperature but continental / regional / local climate change !
And amplitude crescendo : super hot and super cold but only for short peaks !
Vivaldi : 4 seasons : in 1 month, 1 week ?
2004 Cristmas earthquake and Tsunami in the Pacific : more 4° sun-earth inclination change !
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/sterngucker/erde/ekliptik.html (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.br-online.de/wissen-bildung/spacenight/sterngucker/erde/ekliptik.html)
but https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-details-earthquake-effects-on-the-earth/ (https://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/nasa-details-earthquake-effects-on-the-earth/)
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11589-013-0023-2 (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11589-013-0023-2)
They then tested the correlation between seismic activity and the effect of solar wind and cosmic rays on the ionosphere and found that the temporal distributions of the particle burst showed some correspondence with the occurrence and duration of earthquakes.
......
Their data analysis of global earthquakes larger than magnitude 7.8 as well as Wenchuan and Chilean aftershocks suggest that these occurred primarily during the 23rd and 24th solar cycle. Not only did their study validate the temporal relationship between earthquake occurrences and solar and lunar orbits, but it also applied the concept of the degree of aggregation. The study suggests that the location of the shocks tended to occur in the direction of the magnetic field generated by solar wind.
What and how does this affect during the earth the sun circumcycling elliptic ( not crise-round 360°) rotation !?
Now : more oceanic or landmass radiation absorvation ? 24/365
The ant-/artic poles and their ice to water masses ?El ninjo/ la ninja influence !
The magnetic poles movements !
Saltwater/water volumetric change ! Density ! Greater absorvation surface !
Climate change parametrics : humans independent but influencing
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://uebermedien.de/41860/die-homogenisierung-der-klima-berichterstattung-ist-ein-problem/ (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://uebermedien.de/41860/die-homogenisierung-der-klima-berichterstattung-ist-ein-problem/)
Sincere
OCWL
p.s.: actually phenomen,but known : https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/polarwirbel-kollaps-spanien-schnee-madrid-1.5172298 (https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&u=https://www.sueddeutsche.de/wissen/polarwirbel-kollaps-spanien-schnee-madrid-1.5172298)
Yes that's better i can read it now ! ;D ;D
Hi everyone,
It seems most of you are merely aware of global warming.
I need to inform you guys that we have even bigger problems in the near future.
The Earth currently have around 21% oxygen (O2) in air and we humans needs around 19% oxygen to breathe normally.
Sad to say that the ocean does produce most oxygen for the planet and this is depleting.
https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean-deoxygenation (https://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-briefs/ocean-deoxygenation)
---------------------------------
Long story short -As the human population increase so will the cattle,chicken and etc will emit higher Co2 into the air and this cause acidification in the ocean which also kills tiny plants in the ocean which generate breathable oxygen for us.
https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F (https://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/story/What+is+Ocean+Acidification%3F)