PDA

View Full Version : Global Warming Hearings cancelled - due to SNOW


samsung101
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:31 PM
Global Warming hearings (or should I say promotion of one view of
global warming) cancelled in DC due to the snow storm.

Showing of Inconvenient Truth at Maryville U. cancelled due to
snow storm.

Huh.


As the East again, has record snow and cold.
As the Northwest has record cold and snow.
As the West has cool temperatures, and little rain.

Well, LA is a desert, how much rain do they expect
to get for the LA basin.

meyerpl
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:33 PM
Well, that proves it then; the international scientific community got it wrong.

~Eclipsed~
Feb 14th, 2007, 04:39 PM
:lol:

samsung101
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:25 PM
First, you have to admit the news headlines, and that's where I saw it
first, are funny - global warming hearings cancelled due to snow.

Second, who said the scientific community was wrong? I didn't.
I only question the religious fervor with which it is accepted, and
anyone who doubts, questions, or brings up other alternative
views is slammed down as a quack, big business groupie, or liar.

Bush never said global warming doesn't exist. He rightly did not
impose the Kyoto Treaty on America, as the US Senate in 1998
voted to make sure didn't happen. He did question what caused
it, the ramifications of it, and what the best way to deal with
it would be: forced restrictions on the USA, while excusing
the fastest growing (and very polluting) China and India business
sector.


Third, few say there is no such thing as global warming. Most who
don't bow at the altar of Saint Al Gore and his film, do so because
they think he is not accurate in the calamity scenario.


There are many scientists who do question the scenarios based
on facts they happily present. Few want to hear it. They are
not saying the globe will not change: cold, warm, etc.


There was a middle ages global warming period, it was followed by
guess what...a middle ages mini-ice age period. Did the wooden
wheel and horses cause that warming period?

Lastly, whatever happened to the Coming Ice Age! Coming
Global Population Boom! Coming Worldwide Heterosexual AIDS Plague!
All Time and Newsweek dire predictions, hammered away at school
to a generation or two. The ice age didn't materialize, it was instead
quickly replaced with global warming in the scientific community;
the global population is growing in some places, only to be countered
by the near zero population growth in Japan, Canada, and most of
Europe; AIDS is a big problem in Africa, and among drug users,
gay men, and that's generally it. In most other nations, it is not.

Still, a good headline - snow cancels global warming meeting.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:31 PM
Just watch the film guys, it shows perfectly how huge problem the global warming is

tennislover
Feb 14th, 2007, 08:33 PM
:lol:

Diam's
Feb 14th, 2007, 09:10 PM
http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h159/dtcbp/shake.gif

Reuchlin
Feb 14th, 2007, 09:15 PM
Global Warming= small upward fluctuations in AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE (1 or 2 degrees). Just because one place is hotter/colder than usual on a given day does not disprove that global warming is happening.

Apoleb
Feb 14th, 2007, 09:29 PM
OMG, how can there be any global warming if it's snowing?

SelesFan70
Feb 14th, 2007, 10:50 PM
Man-made global warming is a lie. :wavey:

GoDominique
Feb 14th, 2007, 11:24 PM
Man-made global warming is a lie. :wavey:
And you are not a dumbass. :wavey:

AceTennisGrrrl
Feb 14th, 2007, 11:28 PM
Maybe not in United States, which is obviously the centre of the universe, and if it snows, it dosnt matter if most of Europe recieved no/little snowfall the whole winter and all the galciers are melting, it snowed in Washington DC<<<<<<<Therefore Global warming is an obvious lie :rolleyes:

Pathetic

MisterQ
Feb 14th, 2007, 11:40 PM
Unusual warmth accumulated in the Great Lakes has contributed to the immense amount of moisture in the air that has dumped over 100 inches of snow in parts of New York State in the past week.

... which is just one way of demonstrating that climate is complex, and that warmth at one time and place can alter weather patterns in a number of different ways.

Reuchlin
Feb 15th, 2007, 12:04 AM
Man-made global warming is a lie. :wavey:

C0 (2) = warmer planet
burning fossil fuels= more CO(2)= warmer planet
man's activities=burning fossil fuels= more CO(2)= warmer planet

égalité
Feb 15th, 2007, 12:12 AM
Man-made global warming is a lie. :wavey:

Yes, let's take your word for it! You're right, the scientific community is wrong. I'll admit it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm in the middle of a poker game with the Loch Ness Monster and Elvis.

GoDominique
Feb 15th, 2007, 12:38 AM
Yes, let's take your word for it! You're right, the scientific community is wrong. I'll admit it. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm in the middle of a poker game with the Loch Ness Monster and Elvis.
Can I join? Which variant are you playing?

égalité
Feb 15th, 2007, 01:05 AM
Can I join? Which variant are you playing?

Roswell Hold 'Em. It's like Texas Hold 'Em, except instead of getting two hold cards, you get three hold cards, and then aliens come and abduct one of them. You can have a seat between Tupac and Anastasia Romanova! They've been trying to convince SelesFan70 that manmade global warming is a real issue, but no luck so far.

meyerpl
Feb 15th, 2007, 01:20 AM
Second, who said the scientific community was wrong? I didn't.
I only question the religious fervor with which it is accepted, and
anyone who doubts, questions, or brings up other alternative
views is slammed down as a quack, big business groupie, or liar.

There's a reason for this and it has to do with money; follow the money and you'll find that most scientists who offer "alternative views" are on somebody's payroll; somebody who stands to make a lot of money if they're allowed to conduct business as usual.

GoDominique
Feb 15th, 2007, 01:26 AM
Roswell Hold 'Em. It's like Texas Hold 'Em, except instead of getting two hold cards, you get three hold cards, and then aliens come and abduct one of them. You can have a seat between Tupac and Anastasia Romanova! They've been trying to convince SelesFan70 that manmade global warming is a real issue, but no luck so far.
Sounds good. :) Just one remote worry: How does the Loch Ness monster react to bad beats? :unsure:

égalité
Feb 15th, 2007, 01:40 AM
Sounds good. :) Just one remote worry: How does the Loch Ness monster react to bad beats? :unsure:

Well... If you're on a draw and you think he has the best hand, then just fold. It's not worth it. We've already lost Bigfoot and El Chupacabra, and the female orgasm is threatening not to come to next week's game

meyerpl
Feb 15th, 2007, 02:08 AM
Well... If you're on a draw and you think he has the best hand, then just fold. It's not worth it. We've already lost Bigfoot and El Chupacabra, and the female orgasm is threatening not to come to next week's game

You killed me with that one!

mckyle.
Feb 15th, 2007, 05:05 AM
who really gives a shit? we are all gonna die one way or the other so just live your life and stop letting these nature freaks tell you what to do.

Sam L
Feb 15th, 2007, 10:44 AM
Global Warming hearings (or should I say promotion of one view of
global warming) cancelled in DC due to the snow storm.

Showing of Inconvenient Truth at Maryville U. cancelled due to
snow storm.

Huh.


As the East again, has record snow and cold.
As the Northwest has record cold and snow.
As the West has cool temperatures, and little rain.

Well, LA is a desert, how much rain do they expect
to get for the LA basin.

Global warming does not mean HIGHER temperatures ALL over the world. The global weather system is more complicated than that. I've already told you this. Have you even read any of the literature?

who really gives a shit? we are all gonna die one way or the other so just live your life and stop letting these nature freaks tell you what to do.

Yes but just like no one wants to live with AIDS or some other terminal illness until they die, no one should want to live in a world changed by global warming because it means we will lose simple pleasures like enjoying the great outdoors or holiday destinations.

And a lot of politicians and companies are waking up to this so plenty are giving a shit, just look around.

keirana332
Feb 15th, 2007, 11:39 AM
lol how ironic

MisterQ
Feb 15th, 2007, 12:21 PM
who really gives a shit? we are all gonna die one way or the other so just live your life and stop letting these nature freaks tell you what to do.

Those who have children, or love children, may care. ;)

mckyle.
Feb 16th, 2007, 05:14 AM
well all those children are gonna die too if this global warming really happens, so whats the point? just live your life and stop worrying about it.

Kim's_fan_4ever
Feb 16th, 2007, 08:27 AM
:rolleyes: @ people saying that it's not their problem or that global warming is not man-made... As someone above me said: read some literature...

Sam L
Feb 16th, 2007, 11:12 AM
well all those children are gonna die too if this global warming really happens, so whats the point? just live your life and stop worrying about it.

If there's a problem (and there is) we need to do something about it. It's not about WORRYING. It's about taking action.

I don't sit around WORRYING about cancer, I live my life but IF I get cancer or some other disease, I'll take action. I'll fight it.

Global warming is a cancer for the future of humanity (and many other species) on this planet. It's all ready happening. The time for worrying is over. It's time to take action.

Global leaders sign climate change deal (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=37638&in_page_id=34)

!<blocparty>!
Feb 16th, 2007, 12:13 PM
SelesFan comes into these climate threads: laughs, or posts like "It's not true they're lying to us! It's not man-made!", but never comes back in to back his shit up. :D

Timariot
Feb 17th, 2007, 10:20 AM
Right now we have about 20cm snow - which is about 1/4th of what we normally have at this time of year. This is the most snow-less winter I've ever seen in my life.

But good to see that the snow at least landed on somewhere... :)

*abby*
Feb 17th, 2007, 11:12 AM
this planet is goin down the swanny
the rate at which the polar ice caps are melting is just frightening
the fact that in our life time some places in europe will be too hot for humans to live in is frightening
the fact that in our lifetime the sea levels are going to rise is frightening

to all the people who say its not our problem, it is!
its our responsibility to take action to at least slow down the process of global warming since it cant be reversed
i feel sorry for the generations to come, i feel sorry for any kids i have in the future and the kids they have, because they are the ones who will really have to deal with the mess we leave behind!

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 12:49 PM
There's a reason for this and it has to do with money; follow the money and you'll find that most scientists who offer "alternative views" are on somebody's payroll; somebody who stands to make a lot of money if they're allowed to conduct business as usual.

Good point. ;)

Al Gore is apparently "following the money" as well, from the Elk Hills oil reserve, which he [caused to be] sold to his political sugardaddy Occidental Petroleum for a song a few years ago to Saudi Arabia a little over a year ago to pay homage to oil-rich Arabs in hopes of, pardon the expression, drumming :o up campaign cash (in short domestic supply of late, thanks to Hillary) for his '08 presidential bid by making anti-American, pro-Arab speeches on Saudi (s)oil. :tape:

:scratch: Methinks he's a tad hypocritical, this Gore. But what else is new? :shrug:

How many of his flock are herding to their anti-American, ostensibly pro-environment protests on bicycles, especially in the dead of winter? :confused:

Certainly not Al Gore. He's probably still shuttling back and forth to his various events aboard Armand Hammer's luxurious private Boeing 727...or some reasonable facsimile thereof. :hehehe:

:rolleyes:

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 01:25 PM
SelesFan comes into these climate threads: laughs, or posts like "It's not true they're lying to us! It's not man-made!", but never comes back in to back his shit up. :D

Can't speak for SF70, but here ya go:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=2DA6-1

The bottom line is this: global climate is by no means static, nor does anyone in his/her right mind think it is. The problem with you anthropogenic left-wingnuts is that you arrogate to yourselves(read: mankind) the power to cause, and by extension likewise the power to control/slow/stop global climate fluctuations. This is ludicrous and flies in the face of even a casual perusal of the geological record.

For myself, I subscribe to the "He's got the whole world in His hands" theory, which is by no means to repudiate the idea that we should be good stewards of that which He has entrusted to our keeping. Pollution should be controlled and, as much as possible, eliminated for its obviously immediate detrimental effects on human respiratory health, among other things.

But get real, people: you're not God. Unfortunately for the sane among us, however, such a blasphemous notion is repugnant to those who attempt to deify man in hopes of dethroning the One who is TRULY in control of man's destiny. :tape: :shrug:

;)

!<blocparty>!
Feb 17th, 2007, 01:49 PM
Can't speak for SF70, but here ya go:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=2DA6-1

The bottom line is this: global climate is by no means static, nor does anyone in his/her right mind think it is. The problem with you anthropogenic left-wingnuts is that you arrogate to yourselves(read: mankind) the power to cause, and by extension likewise the power to control/slow/stop global climate fluctuations. This is ludicrous and flies in the face of even a casual perusal of the geological record.

For myself, I subscribe to the "He's got the whole world in His hands" theory, which is by no means to repudiate the idea that we should be good stewards of that which He has entrusted to our keeping. Pollution should be controlled and, as much as possible, eliminated for its obviously immediate detrimental effects on human respiratory health, among other things.

But get real, people: you're not God. Unfortunately for the sane among us, however, such a blasphemous notion is repugnant to those who attempt to deify man in hopes of dethroning the One who is TRULY in control of man's destiny. :tape: :shrug:

;)

So, how does this article tell us man-made global warming is a lie, exactly. :confused:

As for the first half about the big snow in the USA... LOL!

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-03-02.asp


Heat Waves and Drought

The beginning of 2006 was unusually mild in large parts of North America and the western European Arctic islands, though there were harsh winter conditions in Asia, the Russian Federation and parts of eastern Europe.

Canada experienced its mildest winter and spring on record and the United States its warmest January-September on record.

Several parts of Europe experienced heat waves with record temperatures in July and August. The July European average land surface air temperature was the warmest on record at 2.7°C above the climatological normal.

September to November was exceptional in large parts of Europe at more than 3°C warmer than the climatological normal from the north side of the Alps to southern Norway.
In Brazil, heat waves were registered from January to March, including a temperature of 44.6°C (112.3°F) in Bom Jesus on January 31, one of the highest temperatures ever recorded in Brazil.

Drought in the south of Brazil caused significant damage to agriculture in the early part of the year with losses of about 11 per cent estimated for the soybean crop yield alone.

Severe drought conditions also affected China. Millions of hectares of crops were damaged in Sichuan province during summer and in eastern China in autumn. Significant economic losses as well as severe shortages in drinking water were other consequences.

Persistent extreme heat affected much of eastern Australia from late December 2005 until early March with many records being set. The second hottest day on record in Sydney was January 1, 2006 with a temperature of 44.2°C (111.6°F).

Spring 2006 from September through November 2006 was Australia’s warmest since seasonal records were first compiled in 1950.

The Australian Bureau of Meteorology today issued a report showing that the period from August to December 2006 was especially warm and dry across the southern half of the country.

Averaged over the Murray-Darling Basin it was the driest such period on record as well as being the second warmest, with much of the central-west and southwest slopes of New South Wales having mean maximum temperatures more than 3°C (5.4°F) above the long-term average.

For many areas in Australia, the lack of adequate rainfall in 2006 added to long-term dry conditions, with large regions having experienced little recovery from the droughts of 2002-2003 and 1997-1998, the WMO reports.

Dry conditions have now persisted for five to 10 years in some areas of Australia and in southwest Western Australia for around 30 years.
In view of these data, the Australian Conservation Foundation, ACF, is calling for much greater action on climate change from the Australian government in 2007.

Both of these new reports provide more compelling evidence that climate change is real and happening now, with Australia already suffering some of the worst impacts, said ACF Climate Change Campaigner Phil Freeman.

“Unless we cut our greenhouse emissions, droughts will become more severe and frequent in parts of Australia,” said Freeman. “The current drought is projected to wipe off billions from the value of farm production alone.”

The 2006 average annual temperature for the lower 48 United States is estimated as the third warmest on record, according to scientists at NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center. The year is noted for widespread drought and record wildfires, as well as heavy precipitation and flooding in some parts of the country.

NOAA predicts the 2006-2007 winter will also be warmer than average. "The prediction for a warmer than normal winter season does not mean we won't have winter weather," said Mike Halpert, lead seasonal forecaster at the NOAA Climate Prediction Center. "What it does mean is that on average this will be a milder than average winter across much of the North, with fewer Arctic air outbreaks."

Long-term drought continued in parts of the Greater Horn of Africa including parts of Burundi, Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and the United Republic of Tanzania. At least 11 million people were affected by food shortages; Somalia was hit by the worst drought in a decade.

Flooding Rains Across Africa, South America

But the Horn of Africa was also hit with severe flooding in 2006, reported to be the region's worst in 50 years. The heavy rains followed a long period of drought and the dry ground was unable to soak up large amounts of rainfall.

In Bilma, Niger, the highest rainfall since 1923 affected nearly 50,000 people throughout August. In the same month, the most extensive rainfall in 50 years brought significant agricultural losses to the region of Zinder, Niger.

Heavy rainfall in Bolivia and Equador in the first months of the year caused severe floods and landslides with tens of thousands of people affected. Torrential rainfall in Suriname during early May produced the country’s worst disaster in recent times.

But it's OK, you had your big snowfall in the US! :D

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:30 PM
So, how does this article tell us man-made global warming is a lie, exactly. :confused:

As for the first half about the big snow in the USA... LOL!

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jan2007/2007-01-03-02.asp



How does what you posted prove that it isn't? At least the article I posted gives scientific evidence for non-anthropogenic causes. You provided no scientific data whatsoever. :rolleyes:

:secret: BTW, did you know that volcanoes actually create ozone? :hehehe:

:lol:

Sam L
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:33 PM
Can't speak for SF70, but here ya go:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=2DA6-1

The bottom line is this: global climate is by no means static, nor does anyone in his/her right mind think it is. The problem with you anthropogenic left-wingnuts is that you arrogate to yourselves(read: mankind) the power to cause, and by extension likewise the power to control/slow/stop global climate fluctuations. This is ludicrous and flies in the face of even a casual perusal of the geological record.

For myself, I subscribe to the "He's got the whole world in His hands" theory, which is by no means to repudiate the idea that we should be good stewards of that which He has entrusted to our keeping. Pollution should be controlled and, as much as possible, eliminated for its obviously immediate detrimental effects on human respiratory health, among other things.

But get real, people: you're not God. Unfortunately for the sane among us, however, such a blasphemous notion is repugnant to those who attempt to deify man in hopes of dethroning the One who is TRULY in control of man's destiny. :tape: :shrug:

;)

Religion and politics aside, you can see evidence of warming just by going outside. I don't know, maybe some of you are fortunate enough to live in areas of the world where everything's been the same or maybe you don't go out enough but in Australia, the evidence is there.

We are in the longest drought in who knwos how long, we're getting MORE and more heatwaves each year. Our winters are starting later and summers especially spring is arriving earlier. There's been massive changes to our weather patterns. The northwest of Australia is wetter than ever. The southwest and south east areas are getting hotter and drier.

For once, can we move past political and religious and economic differences and see the long term?

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:38 PM
Religion and politics aside, you can see evidence of warming just by going outside. I don't know, maybe some of you are fortunate enough to live in areas of the world where everything's been the same or maybe you don't go out enough but in Australia, the evidence is there.

We are in the longest drought in who knwos how long, we're getting MORE and more heatwaves each year. Our winters are starting later and summers especially spring is arriving earlier. There's been massive changes to our weather patterns. The northwest of Australia is wetter than ever. The southwest and south east areas are getting hotter and drier.

For once, can we move past political and religious and economic differences and see the long term?

You're missing THE ENTIRE POINT, Sam!

PLEASE reread my post. Where did I deny that global climate change is or may be occurring? :confused:

Sam L
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:40 PM
How does what you posted prove that it isn't? At least the article I posted gives scientific evidence for non-anthropogenic causes. You provided no scientific data whatsoever. :rolleyes:

:secret: BTW, did you know that volcanoes actually create ozone? :hehehe:

:lol:

This is a sentence from that article you posted:

That melting ice in part of the arctic regions is probably the result of hydrothermal activity in the Gakkel Ridge under the Arctic Ocean.

Sorry but that doesn't sound scientific to me at all. That just sounds like speculative excuses.

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:45 PM
This is a sentence from that article you posted:



Sorry but that doesn't sound scientific to me at all. That just sounds like speculative excuses.

OK, so why you don't you give me solid hard data that PROVE mankind is the primary cause of current global climate fluctuations, rather than that they are the result of natural fluctuations beyond our ability to influence. :shrug:

!<blocparty>!
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:53 PM
How does what you posted prove that it isn't? At least the article I posted gives scientific evidence for non-anthropogenic causes. You provided no scientific data whatsoever. :rolleyes:

:secret: BTW, did you know that volcanoes actually create ozone? :hehehe:

:lol:

What I posted basically made the first half about the snowfall irrelevant. OK you had a big snow fall and a climate meeting was cancelled. So what?

If the information in that article was so significant, why aren't I hearing about it from my government? Did you read the recent report by the IPCC? Written by hundreds of scientists around the world and approved by EVERY government?

You must have missed that one. :)

Sam L
Feb 17th, 2007, 02:58 PM
OK, so why you don't you give me solid hard data that PROVE mankind is the primary cause of current global climate fluctuations, rather than that they are the result of natural fluctuations beyond our ability to influence. :shrug:

Natural or man-made has never been my concern. My concern is CO2 ppmv is on the rise to 350+ levels and still rising. This CO2 traps heat and produces a greenhouse effect leading to global warming and climate change. We don't want this. And that's why we have to reduce our carbon emissions. That's something we can do now and we should do now.

1. Why does atmospheric CO2 rise ?

Time and again, some people claim that human activities are only
a minor source of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) which is swamped
by natural sources. Compared to natural sources, our contribution is
small indeed. Yet, the seemingly small human-made or `anthropogenic'
input is enough to disturb the delicate balance. "Anthropogenic CO2
is a biogeochemical perturbation of truly geologic proportions"
[Sundquist] and has caused a steep rise of atmospheric CO2.

The vexing thing is that, in the global carbon cycle, the rising level
of atmospheric CO2 and the human origin of this rise are about the only
two things that are known with high certainty. Natural CO2 fluxes
into and out of the atmosphere exceed the human contribution by more
than an order of magnitude. The sizes of the natural carbon fluxes
are only approximately known, because they are much harder to measure
than atmospheric CO2 and than the features pointing to a human origin
of the CO2 rise.

>From its preindustrial level of about 280 ppmv (parts per million
by volume) around the year 1800, atmospheric carbon dioxide rose to
315 ppmv in 1958 and to about 358 ppmv in 1994 [Battle] [C.Keeling]
[Schimel 94, p 43-44]. All the signs are that the CO2 rise is
human-made:

* Ice cores show that during the past 1000 years until about the year
1800, atmospheric CO2 was fairly stable at levels between 270 and
290 ppmv. The 1994 value of 358 ppmv is higher than any CO2 level
observed over the past 220,000 years. In the Vostok and Byrd ice
cores, CO2 does not exceed 300 ppmv. A more detailed record from
peat suggests a temporary peak of ~315 ppmv about 4,700 years ago,
but this needs further confirmation. [Figge, figure 3] [Schimel 94,
p 44-45] [White]

* The rise of atmospheric CO2 closely parallels the emissions history
from fossil fuels and land use changes [Schimel 94, p 46-47].

* The rise of airborne CO2 falls short of the human-made CO2 emissions.
Taken together, the ocean and the terrestrial vegetation and soils
must currently be a net sink of CO2 rather than a source [Melillo,
p 454] [Schimel 94, p 47, 55] [Schimel 95, p 79] [Siegenthaler].

* Most "new" CO2 comes from the Northern Hemisphere. Measurements
in Antarctica show that Southern Hemisphere CO2 level lags behind
by 1 to 2 years, which reflects the interhemispheric mixing time.
The ppmv-amount of the lag at a given time has increased according
to increasing anthropogenic CO2 emissions. [Schimel 94, p 43]
[Siegenthaler]

* Fossil fuels contain practically no carbon 14 (14C) and less carbon
13 (13C) than air. CO2 coming from fossil fuels should show up in
the trends of 13C and 14C. Indeed, the observed isotopic trends
fit CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. The trends are not compatible
with a dominant CO2 source in the terrestrial biosphere or in the
ocean. If you shun details, please skip the next two paragraphs.

* The unstable carbon isotope 14C or radiocarbon makes up for roughly
1 in 10**12 carbon atoms in earth's atmosphere. 14C has a half-life
of about 5700 years. The stock is replenished in the upper atmosphere
by a nuclear reaction involving cosmic rays and 14N [Butcher,
p 240-241]. Fossil fuels contain no 14C, as it decayed long ago.
Burning fossil fuels should lower the atmospheric 14C fraction (the
`Suess effect'). Indeed, atmospheric 14C, measured on tree rings,
dropped by 2 to 2.5 % from about 1850 to 1954, when nuclear bomb
tests started to inject 14C into the atmosphere [Butcher, p 256-257]
[Schimel 95, p 82]. This 14C decline cannot be explained by a CO2
source in the terrestrial vegetation or soils.

* The stable isotope 13C amounts to a bit over 1 % of earth's carbon,
almost 99 % is ordinary 12C [Butcher, p 240]. Fossil fuels contain
less 13C than air, because plants, which once produced the precursors
of the fossilized organic carbon compounds, prefer 12C over 13C in
photosynthesis (rather, they prefer CO2 which contains a 12C atom)
[Butcher, p 86]. Indeed, the 13C fractions in the atmosphere and
ocean surface waters declined over the past decades [Butcher, p 257]
[C.Keeling] [Quay] [Schimel 94, p 42]. This fits a fossil fuel CO2
source and argues against a dominant oceanic CO2 source. Oceanic
carbon has a trifle more 13C than atmospheric carbon, but 13CO2 is
heavier and less volatile than 12CO2, thus CO2 degassed from the
ocean has a 13C fraction close to that of atmospheric CO2 [Butcher,
p 86] [Heimann]. How then should an oceanic CO2 source cause
a simultaneous drop of 13C in both the atmosphere and ocean ?

Overall, a natural disturbance causing the recent CO2 rise is
extremely unlikely.

Source: http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

Apoleb
Feb 17th, 2007, 03:31 PM
Why are you guys wasting your time? As if Smasung, JustineTime and Selesfan know anything about weather to start with. That's just what they've been told in the GOP meetings in their area.

lee station
Feb 17th, 2007, 03:34 PM
this planet is goin down the swanny
the rate at which the polar ice caps are melting is just frightening
the fact that in our life time some places in europe will be too hot for humans to live in is frightening
the fact that in our lifetime the sea levels are going to rise is frightening

to all the people who say its not our problem, it is!
its our responsibility to take action to at least slow down the process of global warming since it cant be reversed
i feel sorry for the generations to come, i feel sorry for any kids i have in the future and the kids they have, because they are the ones who will really have to deal with the mess we leave behind!totally and absolutely :worship:

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 07:44 PM
Why are you guys wasting your time? As if Smasung, JustineTime and Selesfan know anything about weather to start with. That's just what they've been told in the GOP meetings in their area.

RIGHT! :yeah:

And the above post exhibits no ignorance whatever. :rolleyes:

Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is automatically a Republican, right? :cuckoo: :weirdo:

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 07:51 PM
Why are you guys wasting your time? As if Smasung, JustineTime and Selesfan know anything about weather to start with. That's just what they've been told in the GOP meetings in their area.

And just by the way, riddle me this, Einstein:

What caused the "global warming" that resulted in the end of the previous pre-industrial ice ages, huh? :confused:

http://cunnan.sca.org.au/upload/b/ba/Sheep.jpg

Baa-aaa-ack to the drawing board, sheeple! :rolleyes: :lol:

tterb
Feb 17th, 2007, 08:20 PM
I don't think I understand... what is the argument here?

If, somehow, global warming isn't primarily caused by humans, does that somehow lessen our responsibility to do everything in our power to protect the environment? Should we not limit CO(2) emissions that contribute to global warming simply because some people argue that they may not be the "primary" cause?

Now, I don't honestly believe anybody's arguing that point, as it's completely non-sensical... but that brings me back to my question: why does it even make a difference how much of a role we play in global warming?

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 08:25 PM
I don't think I understand... what is the argument here?

If, somehow, global warming isn't primarily caused by humans, does that somehow lessen our responsibility to do everything in our power to protect the environment? Should we not limit CO(2) emissions that contribute to global warming simply because some people argue that they may not be the "primary" cause?

Now, I don't honestly believe anybody's arguing that point, as it's completely non-sensical... but that brings me back to my question: why does it even make a difference how much of a role we play in global warming?

It should be obvious, but I'll take a shot:

The degree to which mankind contributes to global warming through Alberto V05 use and dinosaur-burning hotrods is directly proportional to our ability to control it by reduction of said gaseous emissions. :shrug: Hell, just getting Al Gore to shut up oughtta buy us an extra decade or two. :tape: :rolleyes:

tterb
Feb 17th, 2007, 08:50 PM
It should be obvious, but I'll take a shot:

The degree to which mankind contributes to global warming through Alberto V05 use and dinosaur-burning hotrods is directly proportional to our ability to control it by reduction of said gaseous emissions. Hell, just getting Al Gore to shut up oughtta buy us an extra decade or two.

Please, spare me your "it should be obvious." I'm not trying to say that we can "control" the climate. But there is a lot of scientific support to show that mankind does contribute to global warming.

So, you think we should be apathetic to our own contributions to global warming because they aren't the primary cause?

To me, it's "obvious" that erring on the side of caution is better than the alternative. You can't KNOW that our contributions to global warming aren't hugely significant, so wouldn't it make sense to do what you can to limit your impact on the environment?

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 09:10 PM
So, you think we should be apathetic to our own contributions to global warming because they aren't the primary cause?



For myself, I subscribe to the "He's got the whole world in His hands" theory, which is by no means to repudiate the idea that we should be good stewards of that which He has entrusted to our keeping. Pollution should be controlled and, as much as possible, eliminated for its obviously immediate detrimental effects on human respiratory health, among other things.

In a word, no. :help:

JustineTime
Feb 17th, 2007, 09:14 PM
As an aside, I would re-e-e-ally like to see US kick the Arabian petrol habit...but only if you can get my Civic to run on manure!:unsure: :p

:o

kittyking
Feb 18th, 2007, 04:25 AM
Scientists need there to find evidence of global warming if they are to keep their jobs and create new ones - also it gives such celebrities as Al Gore heaps of publicity (sorta like did you really know who Mr Trump was before The Apprentice).

Doesn't mean that Global Warming exists though - remember Statistics Lie!

kittyking
Feb 18th, 2007, 04:28 AM
Hell, just getting Al Gore to shut up oughtta buy us an extra decade or two. :tape: :rolleyes:

:lol:

That deserves a good rep from me :)

kittyking
Feb 18th, 2007, 04:32 AM
Can't speak for SF70, but here ya go:

http://www.newsmax.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2007/2/14/151325.shtml?s=sp&promo_code=2DA6-1

The bottom line is this: global climate is by no means static, nor does anyone in his/her right mind think it is. The problem with you anthropogenic left-wingnuts is that you arrogate to yourselves(read: mankind) the power to cause, and by extension likewise the power to control/slow/stop global climate fluctuations. This is ludicrous and flies in the face of even a casual perusal of the geological record.

For myself, I subscribe to the "He's got the whole world in His hands" theory, which is by no means to repudiate the idea that we should be good stewards of that which He has entrusted to our keeping. Pollution should be controlled and, as much as possible, eliminated for its obviously immediate detrimental effects on human respiratory health, among other things.

But get real, people: you're not God. Unfortunately for the sane among us, however, such a blasphemous notion is repugnant to those who attempt to deify man in hopes of dethroning the One who is TRULY in control of man's destiny. :tape: :shrug:

;)


You are absolutely correct