A little rebuff to global warming

[FluffyMcDeath]

Fade wrote:
@ KennyR
"And if you think Hollywood summer blockbuster movies can be any kind of serious propaganda, I understand better why you're a Republican, Red."
-------------

Are you really going to ignore the perfect example of "the China Syndrome" movie that they have already used, and I previously pointed out to you.

And was pointed out to you by the article you posted.

[redrumloa]

No Fade, but if you forgive me for saying so, the US was never a country where in general people had any great knowledge outside the movies.

Oh boy, here we go with the "stupid Americans" line again.

For instance, I guess now most Americans think it was Americans who captured the Enygma machine, that William Wallace spoke English and did it all for a woman called Murren, or that cowboys were all white men who had draw gunfights a lot.

Let's see you learned that where? Ih yeah, your local news, uni and Jerry Springer. I've said it before and I'll say it again. People should think for themselves, and not accept blingly the propoganda they are being fed.

[PMC]

Bobsonsirjonny wrote:
Last night I was typing up my youngest sisters homework - she wrote it all out in long hand and I typed it as she is slow and it had to be in this morning.

It was about Global Warming. She had to make a case for and against the Theory. While the Earth has warmed and cooled significantly over the last 10,000 years(for example Vines were often grown by monks in the middle ages in the most unlikely of places such as Northumbria) the greatest increase in temperature happened in the 1950's. We are polluting this planet - you cant dispute that - and the oil will run out. Thats two reasons to start taking a mature and adult response to the problems which we are brewing up. When the oil runs out we are screwed. You cant very well mine for Oil on the moon either - there is none there - infact there is no other planet yet discovered with the black stuff - and you'd use more fuel trying to retrieve it.

Thing is there's an awful lot of controversy about it. We've buggered around with all sorts of things in the past few thousand years and we aren't 100% sure what the consequences will be.  Now I don't claim to be a scientist but six billion people must be making an impact of sorts.  An area the size of Wales disappearing weekly from southern America's rain forests surely cannot go unnoticed?  We're taking a helluva risk here so let's please be sure about what we're doing.

[cecilia]

redrumloa wrote:

No Fade, but if you forgive me for saying so, the US was never a country where in general people had any great knowledge outside the movies.

Oh boy, here we go with the "stupid Americans" line again.

yeah, i think some people forget that america is quite a large country.

there are more people living in New York city (all of NY city, not just manhatten) than in all of Scotland (to use the first place that comes to my mind).

so, we have complete f'ing morons and unbelievably brilliant people. And a whole bunch inbetween.
I've traveled across this country and i've seen a great variety. trust me.

[KennyR]

I recently heard that The Last Samurai was being accused of being liberal propaganda too. I think that says all that that we need to know on this subject and the people who think such things...

[blobrana]

Hum,
The latest data (from traces of deuterium isotope, preserved in tiny bubbles, in Antarctic ice cores) show that the Earth's current climate may last for at least another 15,000 years...
 Er, barring any effects from human intervention, according to a new study of Antarctic ice published in the latest issue of the journal Nature.

[whabang]

Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:

The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D

[T_Bone]

whabang wrote:
Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:

The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D

So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:

[Speelgoedmannetje]

T_Bone wrote:

whabang wrote:
Using "The days after tomorrow" as a source for facts is rediculos. It's hard to belive that Americans aren't stupid morons, who belive everything they see in the movies, when posts like this are made. :roll:

The fact is that the Golf stream is a very sensitive mechanism. Bad things happen when/if it shuts down. Just ask the Danes about that extremely cold winter in 1658! :-D

So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:

Twas the short 'ice-age', back then. The famous Dutch painters have painted paintings about it.

[blobrana]

Hum,
1658...Twas the best of times, the worst of times...

It seems as if the 17th century solar dip that is linked to Europe's Little Ice Age and to global climate change, becomes even more of an enigma as a result of new      observations by University of California, Berkeley, astronomers.

From 1645 until 1714, early astronomers reported almost no sunspot activity. The number of sunspots (er, cooler areas on the sun that appear dark against the brighter surroundings ) dropped a thousandfold.
 Though activity on the sun ebbs and flows today in an 11-year cycle, it has not been that quiet since.

"Star surveys typically find that 10 to 15 percent of all sun-like stars are in an inactive state like the Maunder minimum, which would indicate that the sun spends about 10 percent of its time in this state."

I imagine that the  `Golf/gulf stream` was affected by that dip in solar output, but luckily something stopped it cascading into a "full-blown  ice age."

[whabang]

T_Bone wrote:
So... how about that extremely cold winter in 1658? :lol:

Well,
Sweden and Denmark was at war then. The Swedish king took advantage of the cold weather and walked straight across the frozen sea with an entire army behind him. The Danes were completely surprised and had to surrender large areas of land, among them Scania (Skåne) where I live. :-)

[FluffyMcDeath]

blobrana wrote:

It's been about 10,000 years since the last iceage, we should be due for the next one at any minute: hum, perhaps in next one hundred years or so...

With the interglacials being about 10k years and the current one having lasted 10k years, there was an expectation among climatologists that we should start heading into a new ice age in the next few thousand years. This is probably what Tig is always refering to when he tries to make fun of those silly scientists.

But those silly scientists seem to have found that not all interglacials are created equal and it looks like ours (if history and astronomical cycles can be counted on) should last almost 30k years.

More info on epica (European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica). Also, seems that our current atmospheric carbon load is at a 440k year max.

A paper can be found here (pdf).

[Wain]

I would just like to point out to all of you that the expected high in Chicago for tomorrow is 74 degrees farenheit!!!!!!!!!!




Glad to be of help to your arguments.

 :-D

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:

With the interglacials being about 10k years and the current one having lasted 10k years, there was an expectation among climatologists that we should start heading into a new ice age in the next few thousand years. This is probably what Tig is always refering to when he tries to make fun of those silly scientists.

But those silly scientists seem to have found that not all interglacials are created equal and it looks like ours (if history and astronomical cycles can be counted on) should last almost 30k years.

I go away for 3 weeks, and the warming kids come out to play I see.    As I have explained to you before Fluffy, I make fun of the scientists who in the late 60's and early 70's told us that the new ice age was going to be freezing us out  by the turn of the century (the land based thermometers cooling trend from 1954 got that started) and 20 years later the same scientists are part of the IPCC telling us that global warming is occuring.  I also laugh at scientists (ie the IPCC gang who funds most of your global warming studies) who are busy deleting the Little Ice age and the Medieval warming as climatic events from history so the can make statements like "warmest century in 10K years" or fastest temperature increase in 20K years.   If you have a global warming theory that doesnt have to delete known climatic events, thats great lets talk about that, but Kyoto and its IPCC backers are using bad science, and I refuse to sit around and act like its ok to delete climatic events just to make there theory make sense.   I just got back from seeing 27 glaciers that were formed as part of a climatic event that the IPCC says didnt happen, our friend Whabang is talking about that very event above, its very important in his countries history, according to current Global Warming theory (IPCC) it NEVER happened.      
     -Tig

[FluffyMcDeath]

Tigger wrote:
I also laugh at scientists (ie the IPCC gang who funds most of your global warming studies) who are busy deleting the Little Ice age and the Medieval warming as climatic events from history so the can make statements like "warmest century in 10K years" or fastest temperature increase in 20K years.   If you have a global warming theory that doesnt have to delete known climatic events, thats great lets talk about that, but Kyoto and its IPCC backers are using bad science, and I refuse to sit around and act like its ok to delete climatic events just to make there theory make sense.   I just got back from seeing 27 glaciers that were formed as part of a climatic event that the IPCC says didnt happen, our friend Whabang is talking about that very event above, its very important in his countries history, according to current Global Warming theory (IPCC) it NEVER happened.      
     -Tig

Well, while we're covering old ground, I already pointed out to you that your assertion is in error. I'm not sure if you've read the IPCC material, but they do point out that, while those events did occur, they were local phenomena, not global. The trees in North America seem to have completely missed them, if you can trust their rings (which I suppose you can't because they're a bunch of liberal eco-freaks that want you to live in the stone-age).

[Tigger]

FluffyMcDeath wrote:


Well, while we're covering old ground, I already pointed out to you that your assertion is in error. I'm not sure if you've read the IPCC material, but they do point out that, while those events did occur, they were local phenomena, not global.

And as I pointed out earlier your supposition is incorrect, I've read all 3 reports cover to cover, I'm virtually sure you have not.  Saying an event that occurred thoughout both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres and effected all 7 continents to be a local phenomena is both ludicrous and deceitful.

The trees in North America seem to have completely missed them, if you can trust their rings (which I suppose you can't because they're a bunch of liberal eco-freaks that want you to live in the stone-age).

Not sure where you got that crazy belief, North America (which included all those glaciers I was just visiting) was definitely effected by the Little Ice Age, the biggest proof of the Little Ice Age (ie Greenland) is part of North America, so you are really running like a bull in the china shop with no clear direction in mind.  
     -Tig