|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Political Threads This section is for Political Threads - Enter at your own risk. If you say you don't want to see what someone posts - don't read it :hihi: |
01-24-2011, 04:30 PM
|
#1
|
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Hyde Park, MA
Posts: 4,152
|
I wonder what Oog and Grog thought of the Ice Age?
I bet they blamed it on all the methane gas the dinosaurs created after eating all the vegitation.
Now we study cow burps....where does it all end?????
|
|
|
|
01-24-2011, 07:57 PM
|
#2
|
Registered User
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Bethany CT
Posts: 2,877
|
International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.
The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is changing, the records show it is changing, ice cores show it is changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.
|
No, no, no. we’re 30… 30, three zero.
|
|
|
01-24-2011, 08:21 PM
|
#3
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
International consensus falls along the same lines. It is a very small percent of scientists who study climate who are doubters. There are many anti-environmental movement, anti-government, pro-oil people who disagree.
I'll go with the science on this one.
|
you forgot LAWYERS...they are on board too ...probably like 97% of them
Trial lawyers and their academic abettors are salivating over the potential lfor "hundreds of billions of dollars" in legal claims for compensatory losses due to climate change -- according to a report by Richard Inham of the AFP.
'"There's a large number of entrepreneurial lawyers and NGOs who are hunting around for a way to gain leverage on the climate problem," said David Victor, director of the Laboratory on International Law and Regulation at the University of California at San Diego.'
Thus as the industial world struggles to recover from the worst recession in generations, private enterprise will have to fend off thousands of spurious claims lodged by activist liberal lawyers in frivilous lawsuits over droughts, floods, and other weather-events normally classified legally as "Acts of God".
"In this area, the floodgates have opened," said Michael Gerrard, director of the recently-opened Center for Climate Change Law at Columbia Law School in New York... .
"There are billions of potential plaintiffs and millions of potential defendants," said Gerrard. "The biggest problem, though, is causation."
huh....that's and interesting thing to say when the science is settled...
Last edited by scottw; 01-25-2011 at 08:34 AM..
|
|
|
|
01-25-2011, 10:35 AM
|
#4
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by zimmy
The arguments that I just read said, well yeah it increased since the 1800's because of the mini ice age, well yeah there are more people now sow the temp probably increased. The next posts will be it hasn't increased and if it did it isn't because of people, it's sun spots. So what is it? Ask the real experts, they say the climate is (always)changing, the records show it is (always)changing, ice cores show it is (always)changing, we burn tons of fossil fuels as of the last 200 years. Where is the consensus from real climate scientists that it isn't happening(changing?)? You can't find one, so I should just take what Glen Beck or Hannity says to be the truth as the truth. Faggettit... I'll go with the science on this one.
|
Let’s see just how the magnitude and rates of change of modern global warming/cooling compare to warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. We can compare the warming and cooling in the past century to approximate 100 year periods in the past 25,000 years. The scale of the curve doesn’t allow enough accuracy to pick out exactly 100 year episodes directly from the curve, but that can be done from the annual dust layers in ice core data. Thus, not all of the periods noted here are exactly 100 years. Some are slightly more, some are slightly less, but they are close enough to allow comparison of magnitude and rates with the past century.
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.
Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).
Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.
Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.
|
|
|
|
01-25-2011, 02:51 PM
|
#5
|
Also known as OAK
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Westlery, RI
Posts: 10,349
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by scottw
Temperature changes recorded in the GISP2 ice core from the Greenland Ice Sheet (Figure 1) (Cuffy and Clow, 1997) show that the global warming experienced during the past century pales into insignificance when compared to the magnitude of profound climate reversals over the past 25,000 years. In addition, small temperature changes of up to a degree or so, similar to those observed in the 20th century record, occur persistently throughout the ancient climate record.
Figure 1. Greenland temperatures over the past 25,000 years recorded in the GISP 2 ice core. Strong, abrupt warming is shown by nearly vertical rise of temperatures, strong cooling by nearly vertical drop of temperatures (Modified from Cuffy and Clow, 1997).
Figure 2 shows comparisons of the largest magnitudes of warming/cooling events per century over the past 25,000 years. At least three warming events were 20 to 24 times the magnitude of warming over the past century and four were 6 to 9 times the magnitude of warming over the past century. The magnitude of the only modern warming which might possibly have been caused by CO2. (1978-1998) is insignificant compared to the earlier periods of warming.
Figure 2. Magnitudes of the largest warming/cooling events over the past 25,000 years. Temperatures on the vertical axis are rise or fall of temperatures in about a century. Each column represents the rise or fall of temperature shown on Figure 1. Event number 1 is about 24,000years ago and event number 15 is about 11,000 years old. The sudden warming about 15,000 years ago caused massive melting of these ice sheets at an unprecedented rate. The abrupt cooling that occurred from 12,700 to 11,500 years ago is known as the Younger Dryas cold period, which was responsible for readvance of the ice sheets and alpine glaciers. The end of the Younger Dryas cold period warmed by 9°F ( 5°C) over 30-40 years and as much as 14°F (8°C) over 40 years.
|
Where is this cut and pasted from? Easterbrook's guest editorial on the Free Republic?
Let me make a comparision here. I can go find a PhD geologist (Say Dr. Marcus Ross, Liberty University) who is a fervent believer in young earth creationism. Doesn't refute evolution.
Same thing here, you find Easterbrook, with a LONG record of being a skeptic (and contributor to Glenn Beck' Show), with, in this case 15 year old data.
I was at his infamous presentation at the 2006 GSA Meeting. There is a good reason the stuff he posts in the Free Republic is not peer reviewed; it would not stand. The events he has mentioned have distinct causes independent of atmosphereic CO2. Things that, if they occured today would have the same result (Like large, sudden releases of freshwater to the ocean after draining a huge glacial lake).
but then again it's snowing in January. No climate change here
|
Bryan
Originally Posted by #^^^^^^^^^^^&
"For once I agree with Spence. UGH. I just hope I don't get the urge to go start buying armani suits to wear in my shop"
|
|
|
01-25-2011, 04:00 PM
|
#6
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
[QUOTE=RIROCKHOUND;830852:
Where is this cut and pasted from? Free Republic?
Glenn Beck' Show.
Free Republic
:[/QUOTE]
not familiar with free republic....so this apparently is how the global warming/climate change/climate disruption/climate challenges "scientists" and their lackey's attack anyone that disagrees with their perpetually changing and historically inaccurate dogma
you should have thrown in a couple Limbaughs...a FOXNEWS...maybe a Cheney Haliburton and a Big OIL or two
Last edited by scottw; 01-25-2011 at 05:24 PM..
|
|
|
|
01-24-2011, 08:14 PM
|
#7
|
Registered User
Join Date: Nov 2007
Posts: 12,632
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by FishermanTim
where does it all end?????
|
2012
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:57 AM.
|
| |