Global warming alarmism sinking like the Titanic

[DarrinS]

Catastrophism collapses

http://www.financialpost.com/Catastrophism+collapses/3231764/story.html






Last week's G8 and G20 meetings in Toronto and its environs confirmed that the world's leaders accept the demise of global-warming alarmism.

One year ago, the G8 talked tough about cutting global temperatures by two degrees. In Toronto, they neutered that tough talk, replacing it with a nebulous commitment to do their best on climate change--and not to try to outdo each other. The global-warming commitments of the G20 -- which now carries more clout than the G8--went from nebulous to non-existent: The G20's draft promise going into the meetings of investing in green technologies faded into a mere commitment to "a green economy and to sustainable global growth."

These leaders' collective decisions in Toronto reflect their individual experiences at home, and a desire to avoid the fate that met their true-believing colleagues, all of whom have been hurt by the economic and political consequences of their global-warming advocacy.

Kevin Rudd, Australia's gung-ho global-warming prime minister, lost his job the day before he was set to fly to the G20 meetings; just months earlier Australia's conservative opposition leader, also gung-go on global warming, lost his job in an anti-global-warming backbencher revolt. The U.K.'s gung-ho global-warming leader during last year's G8 and G20 meetings, Gordon Brown, likewise lost his job.

France's President Nicolas Sarkozy, who had vowed to "save the human race" from climate change by introducing a carbon tax by the time of the G8 and G20, was a changed man by the time the meetings occurred. He cancelled his carbon tax in March, two days after a crushing defeat in regional elections that saw his Gaullist party lose just about every region of France. He got the message: Two-thirds of the French public opposed carbon taxes.

Spain? Days before the G20 meetings, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, his popularity and that of global warming in tatters, decided to gut his country's renewables industry by unilaterally rescinding the government guarantees enshrined in legislation, knowing the rescinding would put most of his country's 600 photovoltaic manufacturers out of business. Italy's Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi similarly scrapped government guarantees for its solar and wind companies prior to the G8 and G20, putting them into default, too.

The U. K may be making the biggest global-warming cuts of all, with an emergency budget that came down the week of the G20 meetings. The two government departments responsible for climate-change policies -- previously immune to cuts -- must now contract by an extraordinary 25%. Other U.K. departments are also ditching climate-change programs -- the casualties include manufacturers of electric cars, the Low Carbon Buildings Program, and, as the minister in charge put it, "every commitment made by the last government on renewables is under review. " Some areas of the economy not only survived but expanded, though: The government announced record offshore oil development in the North Sea -- the U.K. granted a record 356 exploration licences in its most recent round.

Support for global-warming programs is also in tatters in the U.S., where polls show -- as in Europe -- that the great majority rejects global-warming catastrophism. The public resents repeated attempts to pass cap and trade legislation over their objections, contributing to the fall in popularity of President Barack Obama and Congress. Public opinion surveys now predict that this November's elections will see sweeping change in the United States, with legislators who have signed on to the global-warming hypothesis being replaced by those who don't buy it.

In the lead-up to the Toronto meetings and throughout them, one country -- Canada -- and one leader -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper -- have stood out for avoiding the worst excesses associated with climate change. Dubbed the Colossal Fossil three years running by some 500 environmental groups around the world, Canada -- and especially Harper -- are reviled among climate-change campaigners for failing to fall into line.

Not coincidentally, Canada has also stood out for having best withstood the financial crisis that beset the world. Fittingly, Canada and its leader played host to the meetings.

[Winehole23]

Catastrophism lives!
http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4345173&postcount=1Fixed.

[DarrinS]

I fail.

fify

[CosmicCowboy]

At the bottom of the cold cycle of this hibernation in the late 2020’s and 2030’s there will likely be years with devastating to total crop losses in the Canadian and northern US grain regions.

By Crackers! It's time to get me some of that "Food Insurance" I hear about on the Glen Beck show!!!!

http://www.foodinsurance.com/

Or maybe some of that "non-hybrid seed for my one acre crisis garden" that I heard about on the Hannity show!

http://www.survivalseedbank.com/?gclid=COryrMi616ICFU4M2godBXYKOg

:lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

I admit I'm buying rural land and putting in orchards, gardens, etc. but those commercials crack me up.

[Nbadan]

So the problem isn't that global warming isn't happening, even Darrin isn't that apt at stretching the truth...but that the global economic crisis is so precarious that we can't afford to save our planet..

meanwhile..



Hundreds of people have drowned in Russia trying to keep cool during a heatwave that has been sweeping across the country. As temperatures soared to record-breaking highs, hitting 37C in central regions, sweltering Russians have been throwing themselves into rivers and lakes to cope with the heat.

But many have ignored warning signs about hidden dangers at certain spots or drank alcohol before swimming, putting themselves in danger. Russia's emergency ministry confirmed that almost 300 people have drowned during the heatwave, with at least 63 people dying in one day alone.

A ministry spokesman said: "Last week, 285 people died in Russia's waterways. The main reason for people drowning is swimming in places that are not equipped and the use of alcohol."

Russian weather forecasters said the country had not experienced such a prolonged heatwave since 1981. Moscow's City Hall had to send out trucks to water the streets after reports that in some areas people's shoes were getting stuck in melting tarmac.

Link (http://tinyurl.com/2ubudlh)

[DarrinS]

So the problem isn't that global warming isn't happening, even Darrin isn't that apt at stretching the truth...but that the global economic crisis is so precarious that we can't afford to save our planet..

meanwhile..



Link (http://tinyurl.com/2ubudlh)



At least you guys don't use anecdotal evidence to support your theories.

[Nbadan]

At least you guys use peer reviewed, scientifically backed evidence to support your theories...

[CosmicCowboy]

And back during the winter when everyone was freezing their asses off we skeptics were told we were just too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather.

I would propose that the same argument could be made now that it's summer. We have hot weather in summer. Duh.

[Nbadan]

And back during the winter when everyone was freezing their asses off we skeptics were told we were just too stupid to understand the difference between climate and weather.

I would propose that the same argument could be made now that it's summer. We have hot weather in summer. Duh.

Oh, did the receding glaciers worldwide expand during winter?

[CosmicCowboy]

Oh, did the receding glaciers worldwide expand during winter?

The polar ice caps certainly grew. Lake Superior, Erie, and Huron froze solid for the first time in a long time.

Try to keep up.

[Nbadan]

Yes try to keep up: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes try to keep up: http://koeppen-geiger.vu-wien.ac.at/

:lmao:lmao:lmao

And that proves what?

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao:lmao:lmao

And that proves what?
It proves they are right, because they have accurate predictions to 2050!

What I don't understand is if they can so accurately predict such complex systems, why don't they put their money on horse races?

[DMX7]

Global Warming is back on the East Coast (at least by republican logic)!!!

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/33551/dangerous-eastern-heat-wave-co-1.asp

[Wild Cobra]

Global Warming is back on the East Coast (at least by republican logic)!!!

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/33551/dangerous-eastern-heat-wave-co-1.asp
Yep, isn't it funny how places with the greatest black carbon and urban sprawl have warming still and rural areas are cooling?

[DarrinS]

At least you guys use peer reviewed, scientifically backed evidence to support your theories...


You mean, this peer review process?





I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is !

-Phil Jones

[DarrinS]

Global Warming is back on the East Coast (at least by republican logic)!!!

http://www.accuweather.com/blogs/news/story/33551/dangerous-eastern-heat-wave-co-1.asp


Actually, I always make fun of this kind of logic and you guys fail to pick up on the sarcasm.


d70iXVN5EVM

[DarkReign]

It was always stupid to force-feed (I looooathe this phrase these days) "Green Technology".

Cap+Trade is the worst idea in this entire charade. ANYTHING that forces citizens into a certain funnel of no-choice is a really bad idea.

The best any government can do is incentivize the process....maybe even heavily, if needed. If wind farms can be profitable, so be it. Solar, tidal, geothermal, etc....great.

But just give ridiculous tax breaks, not guaranteed contracts and total governmental commitment wholesale.

The technology to produce renewable energy (on a grand scale) will be there. Really, if any of you tree-huggin hippies had one iota of conviction, youd already have converted your entire energy supply to a renewable source.

Alas, outside Ruff, I sincerely doubt you have. There is a price barrier for entry. One extremely cool and extremely efficent method is geothermal. All you need is a deep well drilled, lots of water (Texas have that in ample supply? Sea water works, too, but youll need a system to remove the salt), a turbine and a transformer.

All for about $50k, labor and all. You can actually take out a loan, get incredible tax breaks and tell your gas and electricity company to "Go fuck off". Two bills gone, self-sufficent energy supply gained, planet saved. You win.

[CosmicCowboy]

It was always stupid to force-feed (I looooathe this phrase these days) "Green Technology".

Cap+Trade is the worst idea in this entire charade. ANYTHING that forces citizens into a certain funnel of no-choice is a really bad idea.

The best any government can do is incentivize the process....maybe even heavily, if needed. If wind farms can be profitable, so be it. Solar, tidal, geothermal, etc....great.

But just give ridiculous tax breaks, not guaranteed contracts and total governmental commitment wholesale.

The technology to produce renewable energy (on a grand scale) will be there. Really, if any of you tree-huggin hippies had one iota of conviction, youd already have converted your entire energy supply to a renewable source.

Alas, outside Ruff, I sincerely doubt you have. There is a price barrier for entry. One extremely cool and extremely efficent method is geothermal. All you need is a deep well drilled, lots of water (Texas have that in ample supply? Sea water works, too, but youll need a system to remove the salt), a turbine and a transformer.

All for about $50k, labor and all. You can actually take out a loan, get incredible tax breaks and tell your gas and electricity company to "Go fuck off". Two bills gone, self-sufficent energy supply gained, planet saved. You win.

I don't question that geothermal works, but I question your dollar figures. I'm IN the steam/hot water business. I know a friend that recently drilled a water well in the deep part of the Carrizo that was about a mile and a half deep to good water. Water temps coming out are about 130 degrees F (obviously still not deep enough to get steam/turbine temp/pressures) The well alone cost $280,000 to drill.

[Nbadan]

The technology to produce renewable energy (on a grand scale) will be there. Really, if any of you tree-huggin hippies had one iota of conviction, youd already have converted your entire energy supply to a renewable source.

Tree-hugging hippies? Not to much of a stereotype there...surprising from D.R....

[DarkReign]

Tree-hugging hippies? Not to much of a stereotype there...surprising from D.R....

Yeah, fair enough. But this "green" intiative is starting to piss me off, no offense.

[Wild Cobra]

Yeah, fair enough. But this "green" intiative is starting to piss me off, no offense.
I have no problem with being as green as we can, but not at the costs that mandates impose. It needs to still be personal choice. This is the USA isn't it?

[DarrinS]

One extremely cool and extremely efficent method is geothermal. All you need is a deep well drilled, lots of water (Texas have that in ample supply? Sea water works, too, but youll need a system to remove the salt), a turbine and a transformer.


I wonder how much energy could be harvested from Yellowstone national park area?


Well, "national park" -- I guess that's a non-starter.

[DarkReign]

I don't question that geothermal works, but I question your dollar figures. I'm IN the steam/hot water business. I know a friend that recently drilled a water well in the deep part of the Carrizo that was about a mile and a half deep to good water. Water temps coming out are about 130 degrees F (obviously still not deep enough to get steam/turbine temp/pressures) The well alone cost $280,000 to drill.

True, when youre digging 7900ft deep, the costs become outrageous.

But there are alternative geothermal applications. Namely a binary system which uses the heat from deep wells to boil a solvent with a much lower boiling point than water.

Honestly, I am having an incredibly difficult time finding a cost for a personal geothermal power unit. All the costs I have found are associated with commercial plants...and theyre astronomical per mwh (but then youre selling the power, so...).

Youll have a residue that needs to be cleaned and maintained (and disposed), but the cost savings would be quantifiable to an exponential degree.

As an example...

http://pesn.com/2007/01/22/9500449_MIT_Geothermal_Report/Geothermal_Map_USA_2004_hj70.jpg

East and southwest Texas is ripe with opportunity to publicly supply geothermal energy, its just that the startup costs are huge.

Moreover, a smaller, private unit isnt expected to produce a commercial supply of power...its expected to supply one house (or neighborhood). Inefficency isnt as important on such a small, non-profit scale.

Also, youre talking about a water well. What is that, a minimum 6" diameter pipe? If its commercial use, I would think its much larger.

Beyond that, say here in Michigan, water is plentiful. Whether by well, lake or pond, you really only have to drill a 1" pipe extremely deep and "slow drip" water down the supply side to boil (or use the binary method).

So, in conclusion, you were right. It would seem my numbers are off for a total system installation. Good read here on the subject.

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/geothermal/m/faqs.html

[DarkReign]

Well, "national park" -- I guess that's a non-starter.

...bingo.

But the Geyser Valley (?) in California is almost nearly tapped out. The companies who harness the natural geysers there have seen considerable drops in capacity as other plants have been built over the years.

Which is why a personal consumption model (or neighborhood/community consumption) seems to be the best model for stability.

Especially in rural areas of non-southwestern states. No offense, but you southern folks got this big, giant, yellow glowing object beating you down 365 days a year with more than enough energy for any rural location.

Michigan (among many others) doesnt have that luxury.

[DarkReign]

I am going to get lambasted for this, but fuck it.

I am no Greenie, but I have a sneaking suspicion I will someday go "off the grid" for good. In order to do that, I will need independence from basically all modern conveniences.

Thus the only reason I really have any interest in self-sustaining power systems.

[CosmicCowboy]

IMHO you would have to have supply/return piping (inlet/outlet flow) plus substantial heat exchanger surface area at depth. Your medium would have to be absolutely pure. If water, de-ionized as a minimum. There are areas where it could be remotely feasible, but Central Texas isn't one of them.

[DarkReign]

IMHO you would have to have supply/return piping (inlet/outlet flow) plus substantial heat exchanger surface area at depth. Your medium would have to be absolutely pure. If water, de-ionized as a minimum. There are areas where it could be remotely feasible, but Central Texas isn't one of them.

There are binary systems that preclude the need for water at boiling temperature, they only require water at X temperature to boil another product to turn the turbine.

[DarrinS]

There are binary systems that preclude the need for water at boiling temperature, they only require water at X temperature to boil another product to turn the turbine.

I've heard of geothermal heat pumps ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geothermal_heat_pump ) for boosting heating/cooling efficiency, but I don't know if there's enough heat down there to really power anything. Unless, you use some exotic refrigerant.

[DarrinS]

I am going to get lambasted for this, but fuck it.

I am no Greenie, but I have a sneaking suspicion I will someday go "off the grid" for good. In order to do that, I will need independence from basically all modern conveniences.

Thus the only reason I really have any interest in self-sustaining power systems.


I wouldn't mind being "off the grid". I also wouldn't mind being "off the pump". Would taxing the hell out of my carbon use give me more motivation? Perhaps, but I prefer the carrot to the stick.

[CosmicCowboy]

There are binary systems that preclude the need for water at boiling temperature, they only require water at X temperature to boil another product to turn the turbine.

It can't be that easy. I could heat LOTS of water to 160-180 here in Texas for probably 275-300 days a year using low technology, almost passive solar.

The binary exchange/expanding product must be either extremely expensive to produce or extremely toxic.

[Veterinarian]

lol people providing random evidence for or against Global Warming.

Its already a done deal that its definitely real as far as the vast, vast majority of scientists are concerned. Its retarded to even have this argument anymore. Its like arguing that the Earth is flat at this point.

[CosmicCowboy]

lol people providing random evidence for or against Global Warming.

Its already a done deal that its definitely real as far as the vast, vast majority of scientists are concerned. Its retarded to even have this argument anymore. Its like arguing that the Earth is flat at this point.

:lmao

Retarded?

Oh thee is no arguing that global temperatures can fluctuate but the issue that is clearly NOT PROVEN is that it is MAN CAUSED.

Proven Science? More like academic circle jerk hubris.

[Veterinarian]

:lmao

Retarded?

Oh thee is no arguing that global temperatures can fluctuate but the issue that is clearly NOT PROVEN is that it is MAN CAUSED.

Proven Science? More like academic circle jerk hubris.


Random politically motivated laypersons laughing off the overwhelming majority of scientists.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Yep, I'd say we've passed the barrier point into Bullshitsville in this thread as well.

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

























































"In trying to overcome criticism of earlier attempts to gauge the view of earth scientists on global warming and the human impact factor, Doran and Kendall Zimmerman sought the opinion of the most complete list of earth scientists they could find, contacting more than 10,200 experts around the world listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute's Directory of Geoscience Departments."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao




























































"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao















































"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao




















Speaking of climatologists (97 Percent of which believe in global warming):

""They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Veterinarian]

Ninety.

[Veterinarian]

Seven.

[Veterinarian]

Percent.

[Wild Cobra]

It can't be that easy. I could heat LOTS of water to 160-180 here in Texas for probably 275-300 days a year using low technology, almost passive solar.

The binary exchange/expanding product must be either extremely expensive to produce or extremely toxic.
It is difficult. Not only must you have a gas that under pressure is liquid, but must have an adequate energy differential between states. Maintaining the operating range so there is enough pressure differential to turn a turbine and have both liquid and gas state in a closed system becomes an issue too.

[Wild Cobra]

lol people providing random evidence for or against Global Warming.

Its already a done deal that its definitely real as far as the vast, vast majority of scientists are concerned. Its retarded to even have this argument anymore. Its like arguing that the Earth is flat at this point.
You have to remember. All except a very small ignorant hand-full of people agree there has been, or is global warming. What is in dispute is how much is anthropogenic, and how much is natural. I am one that believes most the warming is natural, and that we would have no effect on the path the alarmists insist on.

[Wild Cobra]

Speaking of climatologists (97 Percent of which believe in global warming):

""They're the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you're likely to believe in global warming and humankind's contribution to it."

Do you know what a climatologist is?

A climatologist is just one small discipline of the geosciences. Worse than that, to get a BS degree, most colleges only require one more class than what it takes for a meteorologists BS degree. It is a study that uses causation and correlation. There are so many other geocience disciplines that need to be listened to that are ignored.

[DarkReign]

97 Percent still doesnt make me give a shit more. You offer no affordable alternative to fossil fuels and use fear tactics of global catastrophe as a means to convince.

Youre no better than pro-war Hawks who lied their way into two wars. I seriously hate the political parties of this nation and their staunch adherents.

[LnGrrrR]

Youre no better than pro-war Hawks who lied their way into two wars.

This is definitely somewhat true. Both sides have their doomsday scenarios that they play up.

[Veterinarian]

Do you know what a climatologist is?

A climatologist is just one small discipline of the geosciences. Worse than that, to get a BS degree, most colleges only require one more class than what it takes for a meteorologists BS degree. It is a study that uses causation and correlation. There are so many other geocience disciplines that need to be listened to that are ignored.



Random politically motivated laypersons laughing off the overwhelming majority of scientists.

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

Yep, I'd say we've passed the barrier point into Bullshitsville in this thread as well.

"A group of 3,146 earth scientists surveyed around the world overwhelmingly agree that in the past 200-plus years, mean global temperatures have been rising, and that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

"In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090119210532.htm



Tbh I really don't even give a shit that much one way or the other, I'll be dead long before it gets to be a real serious problem. It's just funny to hear Conservatives come up with these convoluted, hilarious arguments to ignore the massively overwhelming evidence for man's enormous effect on global warming.

You have to know you're lying to yourself at this point. I mean look in the mirror, your bullshit is a little too transparent. That said all liberals really do is whine about it and blame it on Conservatives. Pretty hilarious cycle tbh.

[bigzak25]

This is all trivial stuff compared to what's coming.

When the earth's poles shift a few degrees, causing the oceans to realign and thusly, the world has flooding of populated areas on a biblical level...

Well, your politics and bickering will matter for nothing on that day.

God save us.

[Wild Cobra]

Tbh I really don't even give a shit that much one way or the other, I'll be dead long before it gets to be a real serious problem.
We should all care about the future of our progeny.

It's just funny to hear Conservatives come up with these convoluted, hilarious arguments to ignore the massively overwhelming evidence for man's enormous effect on global warming.
They are not what you think. I have a very rounded understanding of the sciences, and can go toe to toe with any alarmist you wish to bring into this discussion.

You have to know you're lying to yourself at this point.
Bullshit, you are delusional.

I mean look in the mirror, your bullshit is a little too transparent.
I speak with facts on my side when it comes to this topic.

That said all liberals really do is whine about it and blame it on Conservatives. Pretty hilarious cycle tbh.

That's just the nature of libtards.

[Wild Cobra]

This is all trivial stuff compared to what's coming.

When the earth's poles shift a few degrees, causing the oceans to realign and thusly, the world has flooding of populated areas on a biblical level...

Well, your politics and bickering will matter for nothing on that day.

God save us.
A few degrees is not enough. How much are you talking about, and do you mean the magnetic pole, or a change in obliquity?

maybe I need to use simpler words. Do you know what Obliquity is without looking it up?

[Wild Cobra]

pwn3d
I would disagree. There are technical challenges, and only a few places are good for geothermal. It works great for Iceland.

[Wild Cobra]

Ninety.

Seven.

Percent.
Let me ask you something. You act as if 97% is a certainty. That said, if I gave you a parachute, asked you to jump out of a plain, and said there was a 3% chance it wouldn't open.... would you jump?

Did you know the precise wordings of that survey that says 97%?

I don't know it verbatim, and see no need to look it up. It effectively says that 97% agree there is global warming. How well do you parse words? I would say the 3% who disagree are not fit to be scientists, because global warming is real. See, the key is, it doesn't say that 97% agree that global warming is anthropogenic (man made.) Just that there is global warming. How many of those 97% might thing it's a natural cycle?

[Sec24Row7]

Actually, I always make fun of this kind of logic and you guys fail to pick up on the sarcasm.


d70iXVN5EVM

Well to be fair to mr Byrd.. its probably a lot hotter where he is right now...

[bigzak25]

A few degrees is not enough. How much are you talking about, and do you mean the magnetic pole, or a change in obliquity?

maybe I need to use simpler words. Do you know what Obliquity is without looking it up?


Yes, please use simpler words Mr. Cobra.

I could use the education. What would a vertical axis do to the earth?

North pole, straight up, south pole straight down.

Enlighten me brah! :toast

[Wild Cobra]

Yes, please use simpler words Mr. Cobra.

I could use the education. What would a vertical axis do to the earth?

North pole, straight up, south pole straight down.

Enlighten me brah! :toast
OK...

First of all, obliquity is axial tilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt). This is what causes the seasons. We currently have something like a 22.4° axial tilt. The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° with a 42,000 year cycle already. If we were to tilt 2 or three degrees more, we would simply have slightly more changes between the seasons.

As for a vertical axis, I will assume you mean the equator is always in line with the sun. We would then have no seasonal changes as we perceive them today. Winters would be slightly warmer due to the eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity) of the earth. You see, in early January, the earth reaches it's closest point to the sun, 147,098,290 km. In early July, the earth is farthest from the sun, 152,098,232 km. The heat we receive from the sun follows the inverse square law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law). The earth would then receive 6.9% more heat in the winter than the summer. This is significant and leads to relatively mild season changes in the northern hemisphere with out current axial tilt, and more dramatic season changes in the southern hemisphere. This is also affected by the axial precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_%28astronomy%29) the earth. As this changes, so do the seasonal securities.

Eccentricity plays it's own special feature to Global warming, and I believe it to be the primary trigger for ice ages. The earth currently has an eccentricity of something like 0.0167, but varies from about 0.05 to almost 0. We are approaching zero eccentricity for the next 20some thousand years. The smaller the eccentricity, the warmer the earth will get.

[bigzak25]

OK...

First of all, obliquity is axial tilt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_tilt). This is what causes the seasons. We currently have something like a 22.4° axial tilt. The Earth's axial tilt varies between 22.1° and 24.5° with a 42,000 year cycle already. If we were to tilt 2 or three degrees more, we would simply have more slightly more changes between the seasons.

As for a vertical axis, I will assume you mean the equator is always in line with the sun. We would then have no seasonal changes as we perceive them today. Winters would be slightly warmer due to the eccentricity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_eccentricity) of the earth. You see, in early January, the earth reaches it's closest point to the sun, 147,098,290 km. In early July, the earth is farthest from the sun, 152,098,232 km. The heat we receive from the sun follows the inverse square law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law). The earth would then receive 6.9% more heat in the winter than the summer. This is significant and leads to relatively mild season changes in the northern hemisphere, and more dramatic season changes in the southern hemisphere. This is caused by the axial precession (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axial_precession_%28astronomy%29) the earth.

Eccentricity plays it's own special feature to Global warming, and I believe it to be the primary trigger for ice ages. The earth currently has an eccentricity of something like 0.0167, but varies from about 0.05 to almost 0. We are approaching zero eccentricity for the next 20some thousand years. The smaller the eccentricity, the warmer the earth will get.


That's awesome dude. I respect your knowledge greatly. Thanks very much for the quick lesson. Do you think anything significant could happen to the earth when in 2012, the alignment of the sun, earth, and center of the galaxy (which I assume to be a massive black hole) takes place?

Thanks again. :toast

[Wild Cobra]

That's awesome dude. I respect your knowledge greatly. Thanks very much for the quick lesson. Do you think anything significant could happen to the earth when in 2012, the alignment of the sun, earth, and center of the galaxy (which I assume to be a massive black hole) takes place?

Thanks again. :toast
I believe 2012 is just the end of their calender cycle, then it repeats again.

[bigzak25]

We are at the end of the dark cycle. The cycle of light is about to begin.

I worry for those that are not saved as they will be wiped from the earth...one way or another.

That's why I suspect the end of the world, "as we know it", is at hand.

And as we know it, is a corrupt, selfish, and greedy world where children are starving and in need of medical attention while corporate fat cats line their pockets and the majority of humanity sleepwalks.

I have awoken. I want everyone I care about to wake up too. It is the sole reason that I have not left Spurstalk. This is my online family and I cannot desert anyone.

Again, God save us, and thanks for your time.

[bigzak25]

:toast

[CosmicCowboy]

Damn Zak.

Are you off your med's AGAIN?

[Wild Cobra]

Damn Zak.

Are you off your med's AGAIN?
That appears to be the best explanation...

[bigzak25]

:lol

Not exactly, but I expected the response...no worries gentlemen.

Not many are used to seeing a True Christian, which is what I work to be, everyday.

[Wild Cobra]

:lol

Not exactly, but I expected the response...no worries gentlemen.

Not many are used to seeing a True Christian, which is what I work to be, everyday.
A true Christian by who's definition?

I am of solid belief that Jesus existed. I have few problems with the history the Bible has. However, the various bibles as we know them in the English language are master pieces of propaganda, for powerful men to control people. they are not accurate in translation.

[bigzak25]

A true Christian by who's definition?

I am of solid belief that Jesus existed. I have few problems with the history the Bible has. However, the various bibles as we know them in the English language are master pieces of propaganda, for powerful men to control people. they are not accurate in translation.


Who else can define what a True Christian is but God and Jesus? It is by their definition that I work by.

I am glad you are a believer. That is Good news.

I have not read the whole Bible. It is one of my most urgent tasks at hand.

However, no matter what distortions may or may not have been created in translation, if your heart is pure and your mind clear, you will be able to read The Good Book with open eyes.

[Wild Cobra]

Who else can define what a True Christian is but God and Jesus? It is by their definition that I work by.

I'm glad you are fluent in Hebrew, Chaldean, and Greek then. Congratulations. That's the only way you can know the true meaning of the words. Jesus didn't speak English, and the interpreters translated it for the King James' power and authority.

[bigzak25]

Good Sir,

Do you not know that True Love is a universal language?

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Zak, you're killin me!

[Veterinarian]

, the key is, it doesn't say that 97% agree that global warming is anthropogenic (man made.) Just that there is global warming. How many of those 97% might thing it's a natural cycle?

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.

[DarrinS]

In analyzing responses by sub-groups, Doran found that climatologists who are active in research showed the strongest consensus on the causes of global warming, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.




Two things no one is debating:

1) The earth has warmed
2) Humans play a role


The issue is whether the warming of the last century is unprecedented and whether any future change will be catastrophic.

I think you should watch this video, by liberal Philip Stott.

Like me, he is a firm believer in climate change. Unlike global warmers, we don't think climate change is unusual.

KtPDuZzfzhw

[boutons_deux]

"issue is whether the warming of the last century is unprecedented"

You Lie. There He Goes Again. Never Fails.

In the very violent history of the earth, there probably nothing "unprecedented", including extreme temperature swings.

The question is not about global warming (proven beyond a doubt, see any glacier or ice pack, or ocean temperature/acidity) but whether the global warming in the past 150 years has been driven by carbon-based industrial revolution and increase in human population.

[Wild Cobra]

with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
Wow....

You still don't get it.

Yes we play a role. How much though? If it's only 1%, we are playing a role, right?

Consider the way things are worded. They professionally write things in a manner to imply what they want you to believe. I'm sure they are very happy to so effectively have brain-washed you.

[DarrinS]

The question is not about global warming (proven beyond a doubt, see any glacier or ice pack, or ocean temperature/acidity) but whether the global warming in the past 150 years has been driven by carbon-based industrial revolution and increase in human population.




Good point. How much has CO2 contributed to the 0.9 degree Fahrenheit increase during that period and how much of the 0.9 degree Fahrenheit increase is due to natural causes?

[Veterinarian]

Wow....

You still don't get it.

Yes we play a role. How much though? If it's only 1%, we are playing a role, right?

Consider the way things are worded. They professionally write things in a manner to imply what they want you to believe. I'm sure they are very happy to so effectively have brain-washed you.

Please stop lying. And props on an original bs argument. Way to pull that 1% out of your ass. Climatologists overwhelmingly believe that Global warming is anthropegenic. That's why I inserted this linked quote above. And I've never heard anyone say its anywhere near 1%.

"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

Joint Science Academies pdf report: "It is likely that most of the recent climate change is due to human activities"

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf

[Veterinarian]

One percent my ass.

[Galileo]

Catastrophism collapses

http://www.financialpost.com/Catastrophism+collapses/3231764/story.html

so exactly which conspiracy theories do you buy or don't buy?

:lmao

[TDMVPDPOY]

wrong post

[Wild Cobra]

Please stop lying.
I'm, sorry that your lack of comprehension makes you assume such.

And props on an original bs argument. Way to pull that 1% out of your ass.
No Bullshit about it. Carefully read the statement again. "97 percent agreeing humans play a role." It doesn't say "97% agreeing that humans are responsible."

Climatologists overwhelmingly believe that Global warming is anthropegenic.

Who cares what Climatologists think that get grant money to support the theory?.

Again, you need real earth scientists. Not glorified meteorologists. A few examples:

Petition signed buy over 31,000 scientists; Global Warming Petition (http://www.oism.org/pproject/)

Environmental effects of increased atmospheric
carbon dioxide (https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/~wsoon/myownPapers-d/CR99paper.pdf); Abstract:
A review of the literature concerning the environmental consequences of increased levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide leads to the conclusion that increases during the 20th century have produced no deleterious effects upon global climate or temperature. Increased carbon dioxide has, however, markedly increased plant growth rates as inferred from numerous laboratory and field experiments. There is no clear evidence, nor unique attribution, of the global effects of anthropogenic CO2 on climate. Meaningful integrated assessments of the environmental impacts of anthropogenic CO2 are not yet possible because model estimates of global and regional climate changes on interannual, decadal and centennial time scales remain highly uncertain.

You should read these six articles by Dr. Glassman:

THE ACQUITTAL OF CARBON DIOXIDE (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/10/co2_acquittal.html)

GAVIN SCHMIDT'S RESPONSE TO THE ACQUITTAL OF CO2 SHOULD SOUND THE DEATH KNELL FOR AGW (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2006/11/gavin_schmidt_on_the_acquittal.html)

CO2: "WHY ME?" (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/06/on_why_co2_is_known_not_to_hav.html)

SOLAR WIND HAS TWICE THE GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT OF EL NIÑO (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2007/07/solar_wind.html)

IPCC'S FATAL ERRORS (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2009/03/_internal_modeling_mistakes_by.html)

THE CAUSE OF EARTH'S CLIMATE CHANGE IS THE SUN (http://www.rocketscientistsjournal.com/2010/03/sgw.html)

the above are in order of writing. It also helps to understand them in order. I can go on and on with material opposing AGW, by real scientists. Not mere Climatologists. I also have a vast understanding of global warming, and can probably tell you why any particular fear the alarmists bring up.


That's why I inserted this linked quote above. And I've never heard anyone say its anywhere near 1%.

Neither have I. You appear to have a limited vocabulary? I was making the point that there is no number associated with how many of that 97% believes that man is primarily responsible. It only say contribute. My point is that even a scientist that believe man only contributes to global warming by 1% would be part of that 97% in a honest response.


"Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case. [...] Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect."

What supporting evidence does the author of this propaganda piece give to support that contention?


Joint Science Academies pdf report: "It is likely that most of the recent climate change is due to human activities"

I agree. Notice however, it doesn't say via CO2! The lag of the solar effect is almost in equilibrium. During the last decade, Asia has been building more and more coal fired power plants, without the technology we use. Because of this, the Arctic and Permafrost regions in Alaska, Canada, and even Greenland to some extent, are receiving Black Carbon deposits via the Polar Jet Stream. So have other places from other sources of black carbon. NASA has done some studying of this effect. Even more recently since the IPCC's AR4, they acknowledge this effect is on the order of 0.3 watts/sq meter of added radiative forcing on a global scale. This means they have to reduce their CO2 radiative forcing estimates.

RELEASE : 03-420; Black Soot And Snow: A Warmer Combination (http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2003/dec/HQ_03420_black_soot.html):
New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century.
Note, the above is from NASA!
Black and White: Soot on Ice (http://www.nasa.gov/vision/earth/environment/arctic_soot.html)

Soot and Global Warming (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=4082)

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/images/imagerecords/4000/4082/soot_gcm_2002.gif

Black Carbon Deposits on Himalayan Ice Threaten Earth’s "Third Pole" (http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/carbon-pole.html)

Think about it. How many times does a climatologist refer to NASA/GISS facts and data? Not very often, right? Does NASA have an agenda?

[Veterinarian]

WC. Hey brah, you missed this one I think:

National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf[/QUOTE]

[Wild Cobra]

WC. Hey brah, you missed this one I think:

National Academy of Sciences: "Most scientists agree that the warming in recent decades has been caused primarily by human activities that
have increased the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (see Figure 1)."

http://dels-old.nas.edu/dels/rpt_briefs/climate_change_2008_final.pdf[/QUOTE]
I didn't even read that one. When the first paragraph has flat out lies:

years—and temperatures will likely rise at least another 2°F, and possibly more than 11°F, over the next 100 years.
Then you know nothing can be trusted.

Besides, i didn't miss the concept about "in recent decades." This is partially explainable that we have caused some cooling with pollution until the 70's when we started making and enforcing various clean air acts.

Trust me, no matter what you find, there is a reason it is a lie.

[Wild Cobra]

He Vet....

I notice you keep throwing out other peoples propaganda. Show me you understand and explain things in your own words, like I've been doing.

[DarrinS]

so exactly which conspiracy theories do you buy or don't buy?

:lmao


Nothing conspiratorial. You obviously didn't read the OP.