Global Warming?

[stranger]

Please explain to me how global warming will destroy the human race. I get that its going to be rough for a lot of areas but I haven't heard anyone claim that it was going to be the end of the world. Until now, that is.

Well you could read the references I listed , but I am happy to point out just a few of the enormous nuber of problems we are facing and yet still imprudently mostly ignoring ... the full picture is enough to drive most people into denial, as indeed we see many in denial form seeing only part of the best truths we have ...

The most ambitious goal yet proposed by some governements , that is not even widely accepted yet, is to keep global warming below 2C for this century ... this we now know is neither sufficient, nor has better than a 10% chance of being acheived even if it were widely accepted ...

So what happens whenwe get to 2C ? [or possibly before that, no-one knows for ceratain yet where the point of no return is , but most who study it say 2C really is the upper limit where control is lost] :

So, at some point the methane hydrate under the sea gets warm enough to bubble up and out into the atmosphere ... there is so much of it ,vast ammounts in the shallow continental shelves of the planet and it is three hundred times as effective as CO2 at warming the planet whilst it persists in the atmosphere ...

so that it causes the warming to accelerate , thus ensuring that more of the methane gets released ... a 'snowballing' effect, a positive feedback , more heat releasing more methan until it is all free in the air [trillions of tons of it , way beyond our problems with CO2 at present ] the rise in temperature is so rapid that very little life can survive the changes and the higher temperatures which chnge ther habitat, make their way of existing impossible ... they could adapt if the changes were much slower, but we know that they cannot do so to such rapid changes ...

Life depends on other life , even destroying 10% of species as we now know we are committed to can result in the death of most life, simply because life is interdependent , all ecosystems rely on most of the species within them thriving ...

We may not think that our current position of the death or severe damage already to half the coral reefs of the world is significant to us, nor the death of phytoplankton because we ahve acidified the oceans through the engines that drive our cars, industry, transport, mechanised agriculture , but these two are the food of almost all creatures in the sea, or feed the creatures that they feed upon.... fisheries are dying then , men's food is diminishing already ... the seas are dying and we have barely begun to see the consequences of what we have done

Natural species are migrating toward the poles to try to continue existing, but their rate of movement is only a quarter of what is required by the changes so far , they are thus already dying out, their niches are simply ceasing and they die ... it takes only the death of a few species to lead to eventual death of the whole ecosystem ,

It is not only a matter of food, but all elements are recycled in ecosystems by variious species... when it stops because of death of even maybe one key species, the whole ecosystem is doomed to die slowly too because it no longer gets one or other element it needs to continue ...

we are already committed to klling much in the sea and on the land, there are many more species that may die from things we have not yet predicted ... we jsut refuse to look clearly at the stress we are placing on the very source of our life here , pretend it will continue to feed us despite we are killing key species that make it all work for us

We are playing brinkmanship with the very existence of life on this planet, driving the planet ecosystem right to the edge of what it can recover from and now even already likely we have gone too far , and still we do nothing to stop our insane destruction of the means to our own food ... by the time it is gone we have no way back ... we should be in all-out emergency action, but instead we continue to pile on the stress , and the CO2 is accelating away from our control, not decreasing as would be to say the least the prudent course of action

an all out effort might perhaps avert the total anihilation of mankind , some might survive in isolated pockets where they can save enough of the ecosystem to get through, but it is by no means sure that anywhere can support much life at all after the increasingly likely [increasing in the sense that men are finally beginning to assess it better and see we are in far worse state than we imagined even a few years ago] thermal run-away of the planet... what point in having pushed things beyond the limits at all... we know that hundreds of thousands already died from effects of global warming of only 0.7C, masses of species wiped out already, and almost all species under extreme stress even from that small rise, yet we propose at best to let it go three times as high , simply because we refuse to see that we are the cause of our own future suffering and really need a complete sudden U-turn or we are most, if not all dead , together with most other life here????

It is one serious trap for complacent mankind, just too insidious in onset for most to notice, but by the time most wake up and look at even what we know already, it will be way too late, indeed it seems it is too late laready because we can only perhaps ameliorate some of the damage ...

We imagine we are in control, can sit back and debate for years in half-hearted manner because we do not want to change our ways and it will cost us ... now we begin to see what the cost of not actin will be, and that we have very much underestimated the problem of killing off 'just' 10% of all life , imagined taht if we aim to keep the temp below 2C for a century that it will not go higher after that, or that we will actually be able to hold it at 2C at all , even if men do finally agree on this imprudent goal ...

A simple change in ocean currents , as is predicted already , could release much methane without going above 2C , then we should not ever be able to stop it going above 2C... we are playing silly games with fire because men do not want to change the lifestyle we lead , and it is more than dangerous, we now know we are very close to the point of no return and that it is not predictable where it is ... 2C is imprudent in extreme, but we cannot even get agreement on that , so little time to get to know and so little sense of the very real urgency that the best knowledge we have implies... it don't look too good for our chances of taking our heads out of the sand and starting worldwide action to stop our way of life and start a sustainable one [if indeed that is possible at all]... we should be acting to maximise the possible survival of mankind, not playing brinkmanship with total death for the sake of conserving our destructive 'easy' way of life for a few more years ... our way of life cannot continue either way, why not act to give mankind the best chance, the minimum death count , not to push the earth until there is no possible way back from extinction?

We have simply not gone through the stage of denial fast enough , we are still ignoring the best knowledge we have, and the point of run-away , where even max effoirt by all men using all resources can stop temperature rise , is something we are accelerating toward instead of moving away from ...

So read the links and spread the word cos' until people know the best truth we have , they will not stop driving their cars and insisting on food from all over the world , and just maybe , if we can save the seas by artificial means and change our way of life completely, we shall save some life on earth by stoppping the run-away temperature from taking us all out ... iif enough life survives then there just might be a sustainable way forward, but we are making that way tougher and less likely to succeed with evey day we delay beginning to change our ways ... we know we have to change, so now is by far the most sensible time to begin, it only gets harder from now on, until it becomes impossible ...

God will surely destroy this earth , but do we really have to kill ourselves and most life here first ?

Isaiah 65:17 For, behold, I create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind.

Isaiah 66:22 For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain.

2 Peter 3:13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness.

Revelation 21:1 And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea.

So few people yet see we are even in a trap, 2C seems a modest temperature rise to most folks, as it is, but they do not see what comes after , what it results in , the death of most nature that supplies our food , and thus the death of at least most men, likely all men...

 

[Avatar]

The Earth has been much warmer in the past. All life did not die.

 

[stranger]

The Earth has been much warmer in the past. All life did not die.

Life could indeed adapt if given enough time, as in the past , but this time we are warming it many times faster than ever before...

Biologists are measuring how fast the ecological populations are adapting and it is four times too slow , thus they are dying out, not adapting, simply because our waste CO2 is changing things too quickly for any biological mechanism to adapt in time before it dies and the species cease s altogether

We are losing species at a crisis rate simply so that men can drive around in cars and live an easy life ubtil there is no nature left to feed us ... taking out species can and does cause the whole ecosystem to fail because each species has a role in the whole, some crucial for short-term survival of the ecosystem, others crucial for the longer term... we need them all and many are already gone ... we have come very close to, if not actually alraedy succeeeded, in ensuring the long-term death of humanity in the name of 'progress' that actually detracts from human happiness ... and still people believe the propaganda , not what dedicated scientists are telling us ...

 

[Vene]

I just have to say this much. Whatever you think about global warming, that it exists, doesn't exist, humans do it, it's a natural occurrence, whatever you believe; humans don't have a good track record of conservation. I see no point in ignoring the damage that we do to the planet and instead work to limit our damage. Even simple things make a difference if enough people do it.

 

[stranger]

I just have to say this much. Whatever you think about global warming, that it exists, doesn't exist, humans do it, it's a natural occurrence, whatever you believe; humans don't have a good track record of conservation. I see no point in ignoring the damage that we do to the planet and instead work to limit our damage. Even simple things make a difference if enough people do it.

The thing is that most people don't know that we are killing the seas , killing other people, destroying parts of the ecosystem not even knowing if they are critical to our ow long-term survival... the CO2 increase is out of control, accelerating , acidifying seawater and thus killing sea life ... evereyone is gonna suffer and likely die if mankind does not do a U-turn... what we are doing is not progress , it is slow suicide by killing off our food supply from nature ...why even risk any chance of doing that , what for ???

If we are to even lessen the chance, ameliorate the suffering and damge, we all have to get involved now, not leave it to someone else ... it will take all men acting togetehr to make a differenece we are that far into trouble without most realising what we have done.

 

[Vene]

The thing is that most people don't know that we are killing the seas , killing other people, destroying parts of the ecosystem not even knowing if they are critical to our ow long-term survival... the CO2 increase is out of control, accelerating , acidifying seawater and thus killing sea life ... evereyone is gonna suffer and likely die if mankind does not do a U-turn... what we are doing is not progress , it is slow suicide by killing off our food supply from nature ...why even risk any chance of doing that , what for ???

If we are to even lessen the chance, ameliorate the suffering and damge, we all have to get involved now, not leave it to someone else ... it will take all men acting togetehr to make a differenece we are that far into trouble without most realising what we have done.

You said nothing I disagree with. That is my sentiment exactly.

 

[Avatar]

Stranger - sorry, but I've been busy for a bit and didn't get a chance to respond. But I think you're wrong, just going on what you have said.

Biologists are measuring how fast the ecological populations are adapting and it is four times too slow ,

Okay they can't adapt fast enough, because of us. But what are we doing? We are accelerating the normally slow rise of 2C. Is that the problem to species, those 2 degrees? Not according to you.

So what happens whenwe get to 2C ? [or possibly before that, no-one knows for ceratain yet where the point of no return is , but most who study it say 2C really is the upper limit where control is lost] :

So, at some point the methane hydrate under the sea gets warm enough to bubble up and out into the atmosphere ... there is so much of it ,vast ammounts in the shallow continental shelves of the planet and it is three hundred times as effective as CO2 at warming the planet whilst it persists in the atmosphere ...

so that it causes the warming to accelerate , thus ensuring that more of the methane gets released ... a 'snowballing' effect, a positive feedback , more heat releasing more methan until it is all free in the air [trillions of tons of it , way beyond our problems with CO2 at present ] the rise in temperature is so rapid that very little life can survive the changes and the higher temperatures which chnge ther habitat, make their way of existing impossible ... they could adapt if the changes were much slower, but we know that they cannot do so to such rapid changes ...

The problem is when the tipping point is reached, according to you - and I don't dispute you.

But, you see, whether humans make the tipping point happen in a century, or it happens over a millenia as it has a thousand times before, the result is the same. When the tipping point is reached rapid heating occurs. Has occurred. Will occur again. And it will not end all life. It never has before.

Again, I'm simply going by what you have posted.

 

[stranger]

Stranger - sorry, but I've been busy for a bit and didn't get a chance to respond.

No problem, it's one of the nicer features of thsi medium taht one can pick it up when one has time and put it down when not....

But I think you're wrong, just going on what you have said.

I wish that were so, but i think you have not yet appreciated the whole, the completeness of the trap set by God for misled mankind

Ecclesiastes 9:12 For man also knoweth not his time: as the fishes that are taken in an evil net, and as the birds that are caught in the snare; so are the sons of men snared in an evil time, when it falleth suddenly upon them.

Isaiah 37:29 Because thy rage against me, and thy tumult, is come up into mine ears, therefore will I put my hook in thy nose, and my bridle in thy lips, and I will turn thee back by the way by which thou camest.

Job 41:1 Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?

Luke 21:35 For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth.

Okay they can't adapt fast enough, because of us. But what are we doing? We are accelerating the normally slow rise of 2C. Is that the problem to species, those 2 degrees? Not according to you.

It may be that species can adapt to a slower rise , we do not know it, but they ahve done so before in differenet circumstances though.... men ahve set other sever problems for the life we depend upon,severe pollution, rapid severe change in climate form what they are used to, loss of soil fertility by poor agricultural methods that make quicker profit and suit machines,but reduce the quality of food and soil , exploitation of resounrces beyond what they can replace sustainably, destructon of forest areas which all life depends upon, the list is endless once one opens one's eyes, beyond any sense because we actually write about what we are doing and still do not stop doing it , we kow we are driving nature to collapse for sake of a few men piling up heaps of paper money with promises written o them which can never, even in principle , be honoured [woe betide us all when the masses discover that one , that their money is faith in nothing , just a promise to repay a debt taht can never be paid and grows until it cannot be serviced, the the end and the price paid all at once... by this generation? ...

http://tinyurl.com/2uoexg

]

so we simply suppose that it is at least possible perhaps that life can cope with a slower rise in these terrible conditions which we impose upon it [and ourselves!!]

The problem is when the tipping point is reached, according to you - and I don't dispute you.

No, I think you misunderstand, the tippig poiints are simply the points at which there is no known way back from the planet turning into something like the surface of Mars or Venus.... there is no guaranteee that if we stop before then , which seems fairly unlikely, that life will necessarily survive to save us ... it is insane to push nature to its limits even, let alone some four times beyond them as we evidently are doing ... rather we should be living well within natures limits, in harmony with it, not what we are doing for sake of utterly worthless pursuits that do not even make men happy or life better, but do the exact opposite ... the lies of political propagnada have become tradition , people still believe God is on our side and we are progressing even though their own eyes and ears tell them it is going most horribly wrong ... it is truly bizarre to me, as though men were stupid, but we know they are not, as though men were ignorant, but we know we are better informed than ever, ... only the explanation in the bible makes and sense of it because even evil men sitting on mountains of bits of paper saying how much the world owes them for nothing are gonna die when it all finally breaks down irreversibly ... what gain can they see then in continuing with the lies , the propaganda that is the cause of inaction in face of the greatest crisi mankind ever faced ?

But, you see, whether humans make the tipping point happen in a century, or it happens over a millenia as it has a thousand times before, the result is the same.

Not so my friend, the rate of change is what kills most life , the extreme temperature simply kills much or all of what is left... any that have the flexibility to exist some time outside a complex ecosystem and live in extreme environments [e.g. the simple ecosystem at the fumaroles deep under the sea , which live off chemical eneergy, not sunlight ... these will live so long as external pollution does not kill them and the vulcanism doesn't cease , but we have no plans or means yet to live down there , and the cahnges to the rest of the planet will affect the environment even down there , some 'bright sparks' even plan dumping CO2 on top of these ecosystems, as if it would not kill them and the CO2 would not return anyway]

When the tipping point is reached rapid heating occurs. Has occurred. Will occur again. And it will not end all life. It never has before.

With respect you do not appreciate the problems we know about ,let alone have prudence to not push nature so hard and so quickly as to create new problems we did not or could not foresee... the rapidity of the cahnge is UNPRECEDENTED and is a major problem for all life, life never faced this before and is not ready for it, least of all humanity that caused it...

As to the possibility of some life continuing, why would we destroy our home so much that we are extinguished and leave only the possibility that some primitive life forms may survive, is that intelligent, why would we do that and call it 'progress' when it clearly isn't what most people would call progress even if ridding the earth of mankind is seen by some as a good move by nature... if we want to die , then why take most of the rest of nature withus, why die miserable deaths from starvation if we really think the death of humanity is progress... we could kill ourselves 'humanely' and leve the planet to get on with it ...

But that would hardly be fair either, we should at least solve the problems we created before admitting what a mess we made of husbandry of the earth,before doing a noble shooting of ourselves as admission that we weren't up to the job...

Whichever way one looks at it, it is evil not to act to save the seas and the land for other life, even if we see that humanity was a bad idea by nature ... we are the only nature that can still perhaps save the larger part of the ecosystem... just perhaps it can even put up with all that we are ALREADY committed to damaging in the future , perhpas even enough for some humans to live on and gain respect for what nature does for us and husband the planet like God set us to do ... I dunno, pie i the shy maybe, perhaps God just scribs the whole lot as it says in scripture starts again with a new earth.... this time with love as the law, not evil as the foundation of civilisations as we have here ...

But i think you do not want to look and see, and who can blame you, it is all-but-unbearable when one does look at what 'clever' humans who pat themselves on the back about progress have really done, and how they think 'market forces' will save them from anything because money is power to many men .... the monay is not worth the trees it was made from, it is just empty promises that sme men know cannot ever be hnoured ... power is that empty because , unlike love, it has nothing behind it , but we shall not see the power of love in this earth it seems ,except the beginning of it at the return of Jesus ... abit late to save the earth though, if it in fact ever were possible for men to cease imprudent complacent pshing of nature beyond its real limits for sake of piles of empty promises... that we know deep down were always empty , just ahve trouble facing the truth within about ourselves....

Again, I'm simply going by what you have posted.[/quote]

 

[tryptophan]

First off, the global temperatures (at least as far as they were calculated in the '70s) actually were cooling during that period. This was partially because of where they got their data from and particles thrown into the air from industrialization.

Second, particulate matter is not the same as greenhouse gases. Dust particles and sulfur containing particles act as barriers to incoming solar radiation as opposed to carbon dioxide and methane, which act to keep in infrared radiation.

Third, the article does not mention Hansen's actual opinion in the '70s. As noted before, he only wrote the software. The article also jumps rather suddenly from flip-flopping to accusations of supporting global warming to further his career.

 

[tryptophan]

I don't think that all life will die. Life as a whole is remarkably resilient. Currently, there are bacteria living miles below the surface of the earth with almost no interactions with the surface.

But we could lose many species of animals and plants, and this could result in the death and displacement of millions of people. Once those are gone, we can't get them back. True, the earth has been warmer, but sudden changes in temperature often result in large numbers of organisms becoming extinct. Many species of large insects and other animals became extinct when oxygen levels dropped. Life didn't go away, but it doesn't change the fact that some were lost.

 

[Avatar]

I don't think that all life will die. Life as a whole is remarkably resilient. Currently, there are bacteria living miles below the surface of the earth with almost no interactions with the surface.

But we could lose many species of animals and plants, and this could result in the death and displacement of millions of people. Once those are gone, we can't get them back. True, the earth has been warmer, but sudden changes in temperature often result in large numbers of organisms becoming extinct. Many species of large insects and other animals became extinct when oxygen levels dropped. Life didn't go away, but it doesn't change the fact that some were lost.

Yes. But mass extinctions are followed by explosions of new species as vacated niches are recolonized. Life endures and prevails.

(yes, yes, I know evolution occurs over 10s, 100s and 1000s of millenia, but life is not limited by humanity's narrow time frame)

 

[tryptophan]

Yes. But mass extinctions are followed by explosions of new species as vacated niches are recolonized. Life endures and prevails.

(yes, yes, I know evolution occurs over 10s, 100s and 1000s of millenia, but life is not limited by humanity's narrow time frame)

Well, yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that those organisms are still gone.

 

[Avatar]

Well, yeah, but that doesn't change the fact that those organisms are still gone.

Adapt or die. Tis the way of the world and always has been. I didn't make it that way, just pointing it out.

 

[Greatcloud]

This current period of warming mirrors the Medieval warm period. The MWP came on just as fast and lasted longer then this one. Did any mass extictions take place ? Are there any species currently in danger from GW ? How about the polar bears are they in danger ?
​

Feb 4, 2008 The polar bear: poster child of the environmental left
Sen. Inhofe's EPW staff has gathered a this in the Los Angeles Times:

The Bush administration is nearing a decision that would officially acknowledge the environmental damage of global warming, and name its first potential victim: the polar bear.

The Interior Department may act as soon as this week on its year-old proposal to make the polar bear the first species to be listed as threatened with extinction because of melting ice due to a warming planet.​

The environmental left candidly admits the importance of the polar bear as a cute, cuddly symbol of their cause:

Both sides agree that conservationists finally have the poster species they have sought to use the Endangered Species Act as a lever to force federal limits on the greenhouse gases linked to global warming, and possibly to battle smokestack industry projects far from the Arctic.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity. "And then there is the polar bear."​

Keep in mind that the decline isn't actually occurring right now. The movement to get the polar bear listed as threatened is based on what-if computer scenarios.


But what if the assumptions are wrong, and the projected warming does not occur? No matter. Once the polar bear is listed, environmental law can more easily be used as a bludgeon for The Cause. Just about any human activity can -- with appropriate logical gymnastics -- be tied to climate change, so pretty much no human activity in America would remain beyond the reach of the environmental regulators.

The Times article lists a more obvious example:

Heavy industry has reason to fear. At least one part of the environmental community believes the bear's listing would provide the leverage to stop a coal-fired power plant thousands of miles away from the Arctic.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is known for his skepticism about global-warming measures, asked U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall last week whether listing the polar bear could be used to halt the construction of a new power plant in Oklahoma City.

"The Endangered Species Act is not the vehicle to reach out and demand all of the things that need to happen to address climate change," Hall said, to Inhofe's apparent satisfaction.

Andrew E. Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's endangered species project, said Hall misunderstands the legal principles underlying the act, which was fortified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant.

If the builders of a coal-fired plant needed a federal permit, they would probably have to show how its emissions would not erode the polar bear's habitat or jeopardize its survival, Wetzler said.​

If the drive to get the polar bear listed succeeds, the opportunity for environmentalist mischief will be boundless.

None of the disasters predicted by AGW touters are now happening and are easy to debunk as they will never occur. It's over 35 years now and GHG theory has yet to be proven,we are not close,it is a big crock a tree hugging money sucker. Bad and fraudulent science abusing the public with scare tactics. I know we have a pollution problem still, but get real, the propaganda about AGW is reprehensible.




















</IMG>

 

[chaim]

That is nice and all, but the fact is we are already almost a degree warmer than the medieval warm period and getting warmer at an alarming rate.

This current period of warming mirrors the Medieval warm period. The MWP came on just as fast and lasted longer then this one. Did any mass extictions take place ? Are there any species currently in danger from GW ? How about the polar bears are they in danger ?
​

Feb 4, 2008 The polar bear: poster child of the environmental left
Sen. Inhofe's EPW staff has gathered a this in the Los Angeles Times:

The Bush administration is nearing a decision that would officially acknowledge the environmental damage of global warming, and name its first potential victim: the polar bear.

The Interior Department may act as soon as this week on its year-old proposal to make the polar bear the first species to be listed as threatened with extinction because of melting ice due to a warming planet.​

The environmental left candidly admits the importance of the polar bear as a cute, cuddly symbol of their cause:

Both sides agree that conservationists finally have the poster species they have sought to use the Endangered Species Act as a lever to force federal limits on the greenhouse gases linked to global warming, and possibly to battle smokestack industry projects far from the Arctic.

"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others," said Kassie Siegel, an attorney with the nonprofit Center for Biological Diversity. "And then there is the polar bear."​

Keep in mind that the decline isn't actually occurring right now. The movement to get the polar bear listed as threatened is based on what-if computer scenarios.


But what if the assumptions are wrong, and the projected warming does not occur? No matter. Once the polar bear is listed, environmental law can more easily be used as a bludgeon for The Cause. Just about any human activity can -- with appropriate logical gymnastics -- be tied to climate change, so pretty much no human activity in America would remain beyond the reach of the environmental regulators.

The Times article lists a more obvious example:

Heavy industry has reason to fear. At least one part of the environmental community believes the bear's listing would provide the leverage to stop a coal-fired power plant thousands of miles away from the Arctic.

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who is known for his skepticism about global-warming measures, asked U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall last week whether listing the polar bear could be used to halt the construction of a new power plant in Oklahoma City.

"The Endangered Species Act is not the vehicle to reach out and demand all of the things that need to happen to address climate change," Hall said, to Inhofe's apparent satisfaction.

Andrew E. Wetzler, director of the Natural Resources Defense Council's endangered species project, said Hall misunderstands the legal principles underlying the act, which was fortified by a recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling that carbon dioxide can be regulated as a pollutant.

If the builders of a coal-fired plant needed a federal permit, they would probably have to show how its emissions would not erode the polar bear's habitat or jeopardize its survival, Wetzler said.​

If the drive to get the polar bear listed succeeds, the opportunity for environmentalist mischief will be boundless.

None of the disasters predicted by AGW touters are now happening and are easy to debunk as they will never occur. It's over 35 years now and GHG theory has yet to be proven,we are not close,it is a big crock a tree hugging money sucker. Bad and fraudulent science abusing the public with scare tactics. I know we have a pollution problem still, but get real, the propaganda about AGW is reprehensible.




















</IMG>

 

[Greatcloud]

surely it&#8217;s more reasonable to allow for the altitude effect: this would yield an estimate that the MWP annual temperature was 2.58-2.86 deg C warmer than at present and the summer MWP temperature was 3.38-3.66 deg C warmer than at present.

Here is the whole entry.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=585



You can't hide the facts about the MWP they are out and they prove that this WP is not unusual at all. Also we are not getting warmer at an alarming rate,the oposite is true all sources indicate 2008 will be as cool as 2000. We are quite possibly headed for a cooling phase worldwide.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
</IMG>

 

[chaim]

Well even if McIntyre is right about the altitude effect that would only be relevant to a few specific dendrocronological studies. Here are the result from 10 independent per reviewed studies, all of which indicate that we are currently much warmer (globally averaged) than the MWP.

surely it’s more reasonable to allow for the altitude effect: this would yield an estimate that the MWP annual temperature was 2.58-2.86 deg C warmer than at present and the summer MWP temperature was 3.38-3.66 deg C warmer than at present.

Here is the whole entry.

http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=585



You can't hide the facts about the MWP they are out and they prove that this WP is not unusual at all. Also we are not getting warmer at an alarming rate,the oposite is true all sources indicate 2008 will be as cool as 2000. We are quite possibly headed for a cooling phase worldwide.

http://wattsupwiththat.wordpress.co...es-say-globally-cooler-in-the-past-12-months/
</IMG>

 

[peaceandlove21]

ok well global warming is TERRIBLE! becauseeeeee it causes high temperatures in the ocean, which some types of algae cannot survive in, disrupting the foooood chain!

 

[Greatcloud]

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/G...Blog/E6BB2856-9317-4B0C-863F-A9C7AE47472B.htm

This project found the MWP was only slightly warmer. I myself choose to view the other study as a hockeystick chart and just as much a fraud as the Mann chart. Those charts are politicly based and the science is suspect.

One fact you cannot ignore,Jan 2008 is quite cooler already everyone reports this. The year 2008 is also predicted to be much cooler then previous years. It is getting colder not warmer. Fact. One reason is the lack of sunspots and the steady drop in TSI.​

 

[chaim]

Firstly, your link doesn't work. Secondly the link I provided is not a single study, it is the results of 10 independent studies. You think they are all wrong? Additionally the National Academies of Science examined all the data and also came to the conclusion - it is currently warmer than it has been for at least the past 2000 years. I am sorry but as far as scientific credibility goes the National Academies trumps McIntyre and someones home page on mac.

I am glad that you are finally realizing the TSI is decreasing and has been decreasing for quite some time. However this leaves climate change skeptics in a tricky spot - if it is not the sun that has been causing the current warming (as skeptics have been claiming), what has been?

http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/iWeb/G...Blog/E6BB2856-9317-4B0C-863F-A9C7AE47472B.htm

This project found the MWP was only slightly warmer. I myself choose to view the other study as a hockeystick chart and just as much a fraud as the Mann chart. Those charts are politicly based and the science is suspect.

One fact you cannot ignore,Jan 2008 is quite cooler already everyone reports this. The year 2008 is also predicted to be much cooler then previous years. It is getting colder not warmer. Fact. One reason is the lack of sunspots and the steady drop in TSI.​