NOAA/NASA Caught With Their Pants Down On Global Warming Numbers...

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

My carbon footprint and trash output is much smaller than most.

A wind generator is another great way to make power. They are relatively easy to make with an old car alternator and fan blades. Of course a battery bank and charge regulator is necessary. There are people living on boats all over, off the grid for all practical purposes. It is nothing for me to go hundreds of miles without using an engine, just slow like 5 knots....

I've been through 3 sailboats so far, my latest a 29 Bruce Roberts design. My next sail will likely be with my girlfriend so we are talking about going a little bigger. 29 feet is more than enough boat for one person. Being on a boat not attached to anything can be nice.

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Phage

I have no reason to think otherwise.

Lots of people do. Science is a shadow of its former glorious self.

It is for sale to the highest bidder.

What are you going to say to all the many scientists who call this crap as crap.

I suppose those scientists are not to be believed.

I know you love science. I respect this. But Phage, at some time, you are going to have to admit that science is a whore. Toe the party line or get called a fringe dweller. I would rather listen to the scientists in the fringe, it is easier to see their honesty.

The cry of global warming is a cry to rip money away from Moms and Dads.

It is a sham and a crying shame at that.

What was once greatly revered is now just a shadow of its former self.

P

Oh, the drama. This response is laughable, at best. And on what grounds do you base your unhinged disbelief in a "true consensus" of scientists? Oh, I see - "scientists in the fringe". Yes, that seems very logical. Don't let your emotions get the best of you - that seems to be a trend from the right...

a reply to: raymundoko

Yeah it is possible, but I wonder why we don't see solar panels in every boat. The point is that just having a boat doesn't make you less susceptible to cause damage to the environment. Not to mention that everything within the boat was made of products which come from oil, or were built, and transported by the use of oil products. Whether you use your motor or not you need it. The motor needs not only gas but oil, and that oil can and does sip into the ocean.

Just having a boat doesn't make you greener. Anyone with a car and with enough money, knowledge and two good working hands can attach solar panels to their car/trailer, or house and partially use solar power.

a reply to: redtic

.. the drama.... is laughable.....unhinged disbelief .... logical......emotions .... trend from the right...

Is that all you have, just a put down, nothing solid. Is that all you have?

P

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: redtic

.. the drama.... is laughable.....unhinged disbelief .... logical......emotions .... trend from the right...

Is that all you have, just a put down, nothing solid. Is that all you have?

P

Yep, pretty much - that's all it warrants. The "solid" is out there - if you can't see it, that's your problem.

originally posted by: redtic


Oh, the drama. This response is laughable, at best. And on what grounds do you base your unhinged disbelief in a "true consensus" of scientists? Oh, I see - "scientists in the fringe". Yes, that seems very logical. Don't let your emotions get the best of you - that seems to be a trend from the right...

You've got it wrong... The drama comes from people like yourself, believers of AGW who claim that anyone who doesn't agree with them then doesn't agree with a "consensus of scientists", "they are all climate deniers", blah, blah blah... Yet people like yourself continue to be in denial after it has been shown many times in the past that there has never been any such "consensus of scientists"... That claim is another of the many claims made by the AGW crowd when they can't really discuss the evidence presented...

BTW, don't ask me again for proof as I know you will not even bother to read it as you have done many times in the past.

All people like you do is write a couple of sentences using dramatic lies such as "but the consensus of scientists agree with me so end of discussion"...

originally posted by: [post=18082914]Phage
Not really. There was a rather sudden warming which pretty much leveled off 10,000 years ago with some up and down blips since. The trend, until recently, has been downward.
www.globalwarmingart.com...

www.globalwarmingart.com...:Holocene_Temperature_Variations_Rev_png

Not really, there have been many global warming and cooling periods within the last 10,000 years. You want to call them blips, but they were climate changes global in nature... Some of them such as the Minoan, the Roman, and the Medieval Warn periods were warmer than now, and they were global in nature.

Climate in northern Europe reconstructed for the past 2,000 years: Cooling trend calculated precisely for the first time

Calculations prepared by Mainz scientists will also influence the way current climate change is perceived / Publication of results in Nature Climate Change

09.07.2012

An international team including scientists from Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (JGU) has published a reconstruction of the climate in northern Europe over the last 2,000 years based on the information provided by tree-rings. Professor Dr. Jan Esper's group at the Institute of Geography at JGU used tree-ring density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees originating from Finnish Lapland to produce a reconstruction reaching back to 138 BC. In so doing, the researchers have been able for the first time to precisely demonstrate that the long-term trend over the past two millennia has been towards climatic cooling. "We found that previous estimates of historical temperatures during the Roman era and the Middle Ages were too low," says Esper. "Such findings are also significant with regard to climate policy, as they will influence the way today's climate changes are seen in context of historical warm periods." The new study has been published in the journal Nature Climate Change.
Was the climate during Roman and Medieval times warmer than today? And why are these earlier warm periods important when assessing the global climate changes we are experiencing today? The discipline of paleoclimatology attempts to answer such questions. Scientists analyze indirect evidence of climate variability, such as ice cores and ocean sediments, and so reconstruct the climate of the past. The annual growth rings in trees are the most important witnesses over the past 1,000 to 2,000 years as they indicate how warm and cool past climate conditions were.

Researchers from Germany, Finland, Scotland, and Switzerland examined tree-ring density profiles in trees from Finnish Lapland. In this cold environment, trees often collapse into one of the numerous lakes, where they remain well preserved for thousands of years.

The international research team used these density measurements from sub-fossil pine trees in northern Scandinavia to create a sequence reaching back to 138 BC. The density measurements correlate closely with the summer temperatures in this area on the edge of the Nordic taiga. The researchers were thus able to create a temperature reconstruction of unprecedented quality. The reconstruction provides a high-resolution representation of temperature patterns in the Roman and Medieval Warm periods, but also shows the cold phases that occurred during the Migration Period and the later Little Ice Age.

In addition to the cold and warm phases, the new climate curve also exhibits a phenomenon that was not expected in this form. For the first time, researchers have now been able to use the data derived from tree-rings to precisely calculate a much longer-term cooling trend that has been playing out over the past 2,000 years. Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.
....

www.uni-mainz.de...

www.uni-mainz.de...

That study shows that the past was much warmer than the present, despite claims from the AGW crowd. It also shows that the Roman Warming period and the Medieval Warming period were even warmer than previously thought.

BTW, yes that study was for Europe, but I have given many times in the past research from all over the globe that shows the Roman Warming period and the Medieval Warming period were warmer worldwide than the present time.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
All people like you do is write a couple of sentences using dramatic lies such as "but the consensus of scientists agree with me so end of discussion"...

Yeah, full disclosure - I'm not an expert on climate science. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say neither are you. I base what I believe on what a consensus of scientists is telling us - and, yes, there is a consensus. You, you believe what you say because, I don't know, Rush told you so? There's probably been thousands of global warming threads where the graphs, links, etc have been posted by both sides, so that really doesn't matter any more - it all comes down to - why do you believe what you believe? What has taken you there? For me, logic dictates over emotion. Don't even tell me there's a consensus that is anti-global warming, because there isn't. If that were the case, that would likely be my course. But it's not, and therefore it isn't.

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

Nope. Way off the mark. There is no point in counter all the BS you wrote. My carbon and waste foot print is much smaller than the average American. We as a society have become addicted to oil, my needs for oil products are far less than most. I am a realist. A few drips of oil in the ocean will not cause any problems even though it is illegal for us peasants to do so....

Being a Florida native and having friends who work in the solar industry, I can assure you FPL makes it extremely difficult for a person to sell back excess power and has controls in place to keep households on the grid.

That said, solar does have it's limitations. There are other sources of renewable energy.

a reply to: jrod

There is no point in counter all the BS you wrote.

So many fine counter points!

It is these sort of posts that really does add strength to the counter arguments. You manage to show your side of the argument to its fullest.

P

a reply to: ElectricUniverse
Yes. It is pretty well accepted that higher (Arctic) latitudes should be experiencing cooling rather than warming. But they aren't.

That study shows that the past was much warmer than the present

Much warmer? It doesn't look like that to me. The chart shows that northern Scandinavia may have been 1 or 2 tenths of a degree warmer during previous Holocene warm periods. In any case, here is what Wilson, a co-author, said about the study:

Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

a reply to: Phage

Our paper is for northern Scandinavian summer temperatures so extrapolating to large scale annual temperatures is not really correct.

And at the same time, the side you are batting for, alters recorded and documented temperatures for cities, tiny areas of the world because roads are dark grey. Well, footpaths / sidewalks are white and should reflect heat.

But no, they alter the duly recorded data and then what do they do, they extrapolate that data to the whole world.

Ice cores and tree rings support the same general conclusions that ElectricUniverse has shared, the little ice age was global, not localized!

Phage, the information we have on climate data is so limited in the time domain that IMHO, the only data that provides reasonably solid data over long term trends are the ice cores and for a much smaller time frame, tree rings.

Yet, wankers like Gore try and hood wink us with tiny data sets that are useless and the data has been massaged.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

And at the same time, the side you are batting for, alters recorded and documented temperatures for cities, tiny areas of the world because roads are dark grey.

Not really. It's been found that there is very little difference in anomalies between urban and rural areas. Both show essentially the same increases. In other words, the "heat island" argument doesn't really mean a lot.

But no, they alter the duly recorded data and then what do they do, they extrapolate that data to the whole world.

Actually the various methods involve interpolation, not extrapolation. Interpolation between a great number of stations.

Ice cores and tree rings support the same general conclusions that ElectricUniverse has shared, the little ice age was global, not localized!

That's debatable. But even if it was, so what? No one says that climate doesn't change without human influences.

Phage, the information we have on climate data is so limited in the time domain that IMHO, the only data that provides reasonably solid data over long term trends are the ice cores and for a much smaller time frame, tree rings.

Oh, there are other very useful proxies. Now, if there was a great number of locations that could be used for temperature reconstructions the same sort of interpolation could be done as is with current data. But there aren't.

Yet, wankers like Gore try and hood wink us with tiny data sets that are useless and the data has been massaged.

Gore is not a scientist. I don't pay any attention to what he says but the data is far from useless.

You really think that temperatures are not rising?

a reply to: Phage

You really think that temperatures are not rising?

I have not seen a reliable data set except for those at the poles and the poles are certainly warming, but then, they have before without man's intervention.

Climate does change, that is undeniable! That climate is changing at this moment in the time domain is also certain. That we are heading for a full on ice age is not absolutely certain but any realist just looking at the history of ice ages would be blind to miss the cyclical nature of such things.

The three real questions are:

1/ Is man causing it? Well, no, not in a significant way over the last few decades. Certainly cutting down the forests and rainforests has had an affect and much of that coincided (or was causal to/by) the industrial revolution. But is man even a major contributor, well, no, I think not.

2/ Can science be relied on to provide us reasonable data. No it cannot. At one time yes, to the best of its ability but now science is tightly controlled by funding and funding is controlled by those with ulterior motives. Science is simply a whore and a tool to control us.

3/ Can man do anything to alter the path our planet is on. No! Not in the slightest! We are heading for an ice age, it is due and all of the changing weather is an indicator that blind Freddy can't miss.

Perhaps if you could take a wider view you may realize that the crap we are being fed is simply to delay the inevitable screams of 7 billion people when the frozen poop hits the high speed fan blades.

P

a reply to: pheonix358

That climate is changing at this moment in the time domain is also certain. That we are heading for a full on ice age is not absolutely certain but any realist just looking at the history of ice ages would be blind to miss the cyclical nature of such things.

I assume you're talking about glacial periods rather than ice ages. Yes, there will be more glacial periods but they don't happen really fast. When the last interglacial period ended it took 8,000 years for global temperatures to drop 2º (to about where they are now). You like EU's sources, right?

Their findings demonstrate that this trend involves a cooling of -0.3°C per millennium due to gradual changes to the position of the sun and an increase in the distance between the Earth and the sun.

www.uni-mainz.de...

Perhaps if you could take a wider view you may realize that the crap we are being fed is simply to delay the inevitable screams of 7 billion people when the frozen poop hits the high speed fan blades.

I don't see how warnings about the effects of warming have much to do with delaying a reaction to something that will take thousands of years. I do see how the current warming trend bodes ill for the next decades.

a reply to: Phage

Either you don't realize that most people use the terms glacial periods and ice ages to mean the same thing or that is just another of you superior ego put downs and as such I will just ignore it.

Ice ages do not just occur gradually, they occur in spits and spikes that do not readily show on graphs such as this one.



As I have said before in this thread, the little ice age was one such spike. One of those events right now would cause crop failure on a global scale.

Phage, every city on earth has only around a month of food reserves within its precincts. On a global scale, crop failure will lead to our demise in very short order. Once we get to the realization that this years crops will not mature we have already largely consumed the food that we stored from the last harvests.

Crop failure also means that not only we, but all of our domesticated farmed animals, our meat, will also starve especially with today's intensive farming techniques. All we would be able to do would be to protect seed herds and quite frankly that may not even happen. Starving people are not thinking of the future, only their empty tummies and more critically, the empty tummies of their children.

You need to realize that our major Governments already know this. They have for at least two decades, possibly more. Try and get a more recent graph than the one I provided and good luck. I have watched data vanish from the view of the general public since 1995. Bit by bit, well researched information has been replaced by the ranting of people like Gore in an attempt to hoodwink the public.

No insult is intended Phage. I still do not know if you are a paid shill. If you are, you are one of the very best and you have my admiration. If not then you are a very intelligent person but your head is buried deep in the sands of science and perhaps you need to understand how a Government reacts to impending catastrophic events. They build bunkers for themselves and their cronies. Look around you, understand the danger.

P

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Greven

Actually natural sinks absorb 60% of our co2. You can even look that up on Wikipedia.

You haven't answered my question regarding your claim.

You wrote that only 29 gigatonnes of CO2 in the atmosphere is ours.

I know that we emit well over 29 gigatonnes of CO2 annually, and have for quite a few years. I think we're up over 32 gigatonnes of CO2/yr, now.

If natural sinks absorb 60% of our CO2, then how is it mathematically possible that only 29 gigatonnes of CO2 are ours?

originally posted by: pheonix358

As I have said before in this thread, the little ice age was one such spike. One of those events right now would cause crop failure on a global scale.

Please stop using terrible graphs. This one says the 'present' is 1950. I guess it's good that it actually SAYS a baseline date for once, but still.

Pretty please?

If carbon monoxide/dioxide is harmless to the environment, I urge all climate change deniers to hook a hose from their exhaust pipes on their vehicles to the cab and sit inside for several hours with the windows up to prove to me how totally safe these gases are.

Please post your results as evidence.

I think you should edit your post before you get warned...

Can people not recommend suicide to others please?

a reply to: HauntWok

Edit: I also haven't seen anyone say carbon emissions were safe to breath...So you want for people to die is misplaced.